Conversion or embezzlement claims; Failure to brief an issue on appeal; Failure to dispute the actual basis of the trial court’s ruling; Summary disposition without a damages award

The court concluded that defendant failed to show she was entitled to appellate relief where she failed to challenge the basis of the trial court’s ruling and adequately brief the issues. “Defendant previously represented plaintiff’s former trustee.” After hearings in a probate case, “the probate court held defendant in contempt” and plaintiff filed this action asserting claims for conversion or embezzlement. In successfully moving for summary disposition, plaintiff relied “on defendant’s answers to the complaint, defendant’s statements made at the probate court contempt hearing, and checks reflecting the distribution to defendant’s corporate entity and plaintiff’s estate.” Defendant argued on appeal that “substantively admissible evidence was not presented in the contempt hearing and the trial court did not enter a judgment amount.” The court found it did not have to decide “whether the trial court erred in relying on the” contempt hearing transcript given that defendant failed to brief the issue. And it noted plaintiff “also claimed that defendant’s answers to the complaint provided a factual basis for” summary disposition. The trial court indicated it granted plaintiff’s motion “for the reasons set forth in plaintiff’s brief. Because defendant” failed to brief or address whether the answers properly served as a basis for granting the motion, and the trial court’s reliance on this aspect of the motion, she did not show she was entitled to relief. As to the lack of a damages award, “summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when, except as to ‘the amount of damages,’ there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The trial court did not receive any proofs on “the damage award or enter a judgment amount. Thus, defendant may still contest this issue in the trial court.” Affirmed.