Breach of contract; Defamation; Mitan v Campbell; Whether remarks were “false & defamatory” & “unprivileged communications”; Qualified privilege; Res judicata; Motion to amend the complaint to add a defendant; MCR 2.207; Kubiak v Hurr; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); “Extreme & outrageous” conduct; Threats; Sanctions for filing a “frivolous” action; MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii); Circumstances at the time a claim was asserted

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that defendant-school did not breach its contract with plaintiffs-parents by expelling their children and that the trial court did not err in granting defendants summary disposition of plaintiffs’ defamation claims. It also found that another claim was barred by res judicata, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add a defendant. Further, it upheld summary disposition on the IIED claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8). But it concluded “the trial court’s finding of frivolousness was clearly erroneous.” As to the contract claim, the school “has a ‘Parent Handbook’ that sets out the terms of its relationship with families attending the school. It expressly provides that student dismissal is a possible response for particularly aggravated forms of parental misconduct, and provides a nonexclusive list of qualifying behaviors[.]” One of the individual defendants (the “Head of School”) restricted plaintiff-father’s access to the school property, a directive that was “disobeyed. That is a trespass.” The court held that there was no contract breach because there was no dispute that the father violated the “directive not to continue coming to the school to observe recess; his conduct therefore is on the Parent Handbook’s list of behaviors justifying expulsion.” As to the defamation claims, it concluded all “the remarks which plaintiffs allege defamed them are either not capable of defaming them, were not made with actual malice, or are simply true.” As to the IIED claim, the court found that “a dispute that ripens into the defendants severing their business relationship with plaintiffs is simply not ‘utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’” Reviewing examples of actionable IIED, it determined that the allegations here were “nowhere close to these in severity[.]” As to sanctions, the court noted that a “‘court must determine whether a claim or defense is frivolous on the basis of the circumstances at the time it was asserted.’” It concluded that one of the claims the trial court found frivolous “was not devoid of arguable merit at the time it was filed[,]” and as to another claim, plaintiffs could not have known the identity of the person who made the statement (and that the school could not be held liable for it) when they filed their suit against the school. It affirmed summary disposition for defendants but reversed the sanctions award.