Action for alleged damage caused to trust property; Motion to dismiss; Motion in limine to exclude evidence of monetary damages; Timeliness of the motions

As to plaintiff-Trust’s arguments about defendants-Walkers’ motion to dismiss, the court held that the Trust was not entitled to relief based on the trial court’s failure to strictly follow MCR 2.116 where any error was harmless. But it agreed that “the trial court erred when it granted the motion to dismiss because the evidence presented failed to establish that the Trust transferred the Property to” a nonparty (N). The court also held that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of monetary damages. Thus, it vacated the trial court’s judgment granting the Walkers’ motion to dismiss and motion in limine. and remanded. The case arose from alleged damage caused to the Trust’s property “after defendants altered the grading of their own adjacent properties.” As to the timeliness of the Walkers’ motion to dismiss, while there was no dispute they “filed their motion after the deadline set forth in the [5/21] pretrial order, the Trust’s reliance on the deadlines in that order would require us to read that order in isolation, without the context of the procedural and factual history of this case. Once the case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties, absent an order to the contrary from the trial court upon reinstatement of the case, the [5/21] pretrial order implicitly no longer controlled.” Supporting this conclusion was “that the case was reinstated almost a year after the original trial date upon which the [5/21] pretrial order was based, and the new trial date was almost two years after the trial date contemplated by the deadlines in the order.” Further, although the court agreed “that the hearing on the motion took place before the applicable time periods set forth in MCR 2.116 had elapsed, under the specific facts of this case, the Trust is not entitled to relief on this basis.” The court noted that it “responded to the motion to dismiss, did not ask for additional time, and” failed to raise “any substantive claims of prejudice[.]” Turning to the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting the Walkers’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded a genuine issue of material fact existed as to “the ownership of the Property, and, regardless, the record contained insufficient evidence to conclude, as a matter of law, that the Trust would not have remained a real party in interest to any claim in the complaint had a transfer occurred.” As to the motion in limine, which “was based on the language of a stipulated order removing the case from case evaluation under MCR 2.403,” the court read that “order as declining to submit any part of the action to case evaluation on the basis that the primary relief sought is not monetary, but we do not interpret it as going so far as to establish that the only relief sought is equitable such that, going forward, the Trust would be wholly foreclosed from pursuing any monetary relief.”