Jurisdiction to consider claims on appeal; Mootness; Dismissal based on res judicata & compulsory joinder; MCR 2.203(A); Conversion; The law of the case doctrine; Jode Invs LLC v Burning Tree Props, LLC (Unpub) (Jode Invs I & II)

The court held that it did “not have jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ claims of error” as to defendants’ counterclaims. It also concluded “the trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs’ claims.” The case involved “disputes between various investors in a golf club property[.]” On appeal, plaintiffs argued “the trial court erred by dismissing several of their claims under the doctrine of res judicata and compulsory joinder.” They also argued that it erred in “refusing to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims on the basis of res judicata, compulsory joinder, and the statute of limitations.” The court found that plaintiffs “expressly reserved the right to appeal claims already dismissed by the trial court before entry of the stipulated final order.” Thus, their “claims of error related to Counts I and Counts IV through VII of their complaint” were properly before the court. But they “did not reserve the right to appeal the claims and counterclaims that were dismissed in the stipulated order, which included all of defendants’ counterclaims. After agreeing to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in this case, plaintiffs are not an aggrieved party.” Additionally, it found that “because the final stipulated order dismissing defendants’ counterclaims against plaintiffs with prejudice was in plaintiffs’ favor, plaintiffs are no longer aggrieved by the trial court’s earlier opinions and orders denying summary disposition of those counterclaims.” It found that the “stipulated order of dismissal also rendered plaintiffs’ claims of error related to the counterclaims moot.” Plaintiffs further argued the trial court erred by holding “that their claims were barred by the doctrines of compulsory joinder and res judicata.” The court disagreed. They contended there was “a genuine issue of fact when defendants refused to allow plaintiffs to become members” of defendants-Club Golf entities. This argument lacked merit. Plaintiffs “knew of defendants’ alleged failure to make them members of the Club Golf entities when they filed their counterclaims against [defendant-]Jode Investments and the Club Golf entities and third-party complaint against [defendants-]Marrocco and Fanelli on [4/27/11] and should have joined these claims.” Plaintiffs also contended “that their breach-of-contract claim could not have been raised until [6/4/12], when the trial court dissolved” two other “entities and plaintiffs could no longer seek specific performance of the agreement.” This argument also had no merit. “Because plaintiffs were able to, but failed to join Counts IV through VII of their complaint in the 2011 case, the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition of these claims on the basis of compulsory joinder.” Affirmed.