Preclusion; Res judicata; MCR 2.116(C)(7); Garrett v Washington; Appellate procedure; Abandonment; Mitcham v Detroit; Settlements; Voluntary dismissal with prejudice; Limbach v Oakland Cnty Bd of Rd Comm’rs; Same transaction test; Adair v Michigan

The court held that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata because the ownership dispute over the property at issue and related land contract had already been resolved in the prior probate settlement proceeding. Plaintiff and defendant-Thomas are siblings and beneficiaries of their parents’ trust. Their dispute centered on whether plaintiff retained a separate interest in the land contract on the property after the property was conveyed to the trust and later awarded to defendant in a settlement. The trial court granted summary disposition after plaintiff filed a new action seeking foreclosure against the land-contract vendees and partition against defendant. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff had abandoned any meaningful challenge to the res judicata ruling because she did not address whether the prior action was decided on the merits, whether the same parties or privies were involved, or whether the new claims were or could have been resolved earlier. An appellant may not simply “‘announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims[.]’” The court next held that, even aside from abandonment, all elements of res judicata were satisfied. It explained that the prior action was decided on the merits because “[v]oluntary dismissals with prejudice are decisions on the merits for purposes of res judicata.” The court further held that the present action arose from the same transaction because the “evidence, essential facts, and the arguments raised related to the” property were identical to those raised before, and plaintiff was merely trying to relitigate an argument already rejected. Affirmed.