Tortious interference with a contract & with a business relationship or expectancy; Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Conversion; MCL 600.2919a(1)(a) & (b); Great weight of the evidence; Fraudulent transfer; Case evaluation sanctions; Application of the former MCR 2.403(O)

The court affirmed the trial court’s 5/23/22 order partially granting summary disposition in favor of defendants and affirmed the trial court’s 12/13/23 order denying plaintiffs’ motion for JNOV. It also affirmed the trial court’s 2/5/24 order denying defendants’ motion for case evaluation sanctions. The case arose “from a longstanding conflict between former business partners[.]” The court concluded that plaintiffs “failed to present documentary evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact on their tortious interference claim. Plaintiffs’ claim was premised on defendants allegedly filing postassignment collection lawsuits for unpaid dues against golf course members, and [defendant-]Marrocco allowing his dog onto the premises and driving his car on the golf course, both of which damaged plaintiffs’ goodwill.” The court noted “plaintiffs failed to present any documentary evidence in support of these allegations. With regard to tortious interference with a contract, plaintiffs presented no evidence establishing the existence of a contract that was breached. As for tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy, plaintiffs presented no documentary evidence to establish that defendants intentionally interfered with a valid business relationship, or any damages resulting from defendants’ alleged misconduct.” The court held that given “plaintiffs’ failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact through documentary evidence on their tortious interference claim, the trial court did not err by partially granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition.” Also, as “defendant noted, plaintiffs’ argument does not delineate the standards between a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial. Instead, plaintiffs repeatedly assert that they established their claims ‘by the great weight of the evidence.’” The court found that plaintiffs’ argument failed under either standard. Further, it concluded that “the trial court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for directed verdict or for a new trial with respect to their conversion and fraudulent-transfer claims.” Finally, the court held that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion when declining to apply former MCR 2.403(O), and denying defendants’ request for case-evaluation sanctions.”