Fraudulent transfer; Michigan’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; “Constructive fraud”; MCL 566.35; Dillard v Schlussel; Pursuit of other enforcement actions in other jurisdictions; Motion for enforcement of MCR 2.621(G); “Further proceedings”; Claim for independent relief under MCR 2.612(C)(3); Waiver; Motion for reconsideration

In an issue of first impression, the court interpreted the phrase “further proceedings” in MCR 2.621(G) and held that the court rule does not apply to supplemental proceedings brought in other jurisdictions. It also upheld the trial court’s order that found plaintiff-Schubiner “had engaged in a fraudulent transfer of real estate and” voided the transfer. In Docket No. 371134, the court held that Schubiner’s claim for independent relief under MCR 2.612(C)(3) was waived, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. In Docket No. 377133, he and intervenor-305 Associates appealed the trial court’s fraudulent transfer order. The court held that the trial court did not err in determining “Schubiner made a fraudulent transfer of properties[.]” He and 305 challenged the trial court’s finding that he “did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer.” The court determined that, accepting “that Schubiner’s debt was the same both before and after the refinancing, that does not fully describe the situation: 305 got its debt erased. Thus, the question becomes, ‘In the context of this particular transaction, did 305 give Schubiner anything for the removal of 305’s debt?’ The answer would appear to be ‘no.’ Schubiner’s debt related to these loans remained virtually unchanged after the refinancing. It therefore is highly questionable that he received any ‘value’ for becoming the sole obligor on the loans, with 305 getting its debt eliminated.” The court concluded that, accepting his “and 305’s position that Schubiner had the same debt (related to the loans) before and after the refinancing, the evidence shows that [he] received nothing for 305 being able to eliminate its debt on the loans, with him now taking on the full liability for the loan debts.” Thus, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred” as to its finding. It also rejected Schubiner’s argument that defendant-Can IV had to seek the trial court’s leave before pursuing other enforcement actions in other jurisdictions. The court held that “MCR 2.621(G) does not permit a party to bring multiple supplementary proceedings under MCR 2.621(A) without obtaining leave of the [trial] court. It does not pertain to other types of supplemental proceedings, including those initiated in other jurisdictions.” Affirmed.