Mortgage foreclosure; Res judicata; Collateral estoppel; Prior judgment; Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7); Interlocutory order; MCR 2.604(A); Pending action; MCR 2.116(C)(6); Alternative grounds for affirmance; Frivolous action; MCL 600.2591

The court held that summary disposition was proper because another pending action involved the same parties and claims, but the trial court erred by relying on res judicata and by finding the action frivolous based on a nonfinal order. Plaintiff-mortgagor Turner filed a second action against defendant-mortgage servicer seeking to undo a foreclosure after the trial court had granted defendant summary disposition in his first action, although claims against another party remained unresolved there. The trial court dismissed the second action on res judicata and collateral-estoppel grounds and found it frivolous. On appeal, the court held that the 2/24 order in the first action had no preclusive effect because, under MCR 2.604(A), an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties “does not terminate the action” and remains subject to revision before final judgment. But the court affirmed on alternative grounds under MCR 2.116(C)(6) because “[a]nother action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim,” meaning Turner had to pursue the claims in the still-pending 2023 case. Because the frivolous-action ruling rested on the mistaken premise that the prior order was final and with prejudice, the court vacated that finding. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.