Dismissal of a complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(7); Whether pleadings were sufficient to raise a fraud claim; MCR 2.111(B)(1); Due process; Res judicata; Whether summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(8); Maiden v Rozwood

While the court concluded the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff-Schuler’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(7), it held that dismissal was warranted under (C)(8). Thus, it affirmed dismissal of the complaint. Before addressing the merits of his claim on appeal, the court rejected his argument “the trial court erred by dismissing his claim because the small claims court dismissed his earlier case for lack of jurisdiction based upon the small claims court finding that there was fraud.” Apart from the fact the record did not support his “assertion that the small claims division found ‘fraud’” to the extent he sought “to raise a fraud claim in the circuit court, his pleadings were wholly deficient.” As to the merits, the court agreed with Schuler that dismissal of his complaint under (C)(7) based on res judicata was improper. At “least any intentional torts raised in the earlier claim are not precluded by res judicata because, under MCL 600.8424, such claims could not have been raised in the earlier action in the small claims court. Moreover, the third element of res judicata cannot be determined on the present record. Rather, because Schuler’s complaint made no allegations of fact and pleaded no causes of action, it is impossible to determine whether the matter in this case could have been resolved in the prior case.” The court noted that “when no claims are raised in the second action, no analysis of” the third res judicata element is possible. Thus, the trial court erred in “summarily dismissing the claim under MCR 2.116(C)(7).” But the court held that “summary disposition was undeniably warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(8).” It found that “Schuler made no well-pleaded factual allegations. Having alleged no claims, Schuler’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and summary disposition should have been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Accordingly, despite the court’s incorrect dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(7), [it] reached the proper result.”