Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) & (I)(1); Sua sponte dismissal; Notice & meaningful opportunity to be heard; Settlement enforcement; Res judicata; Foster v Foster; Adair v State; Dismissal with prejudice; Collateral attack on consent judgment; Same parties or privies; Same transaction; Premature summary disposition

The court held that res judicata barred plaintiff-former priest’s claims for unpaid compensation and related relief, and that the trial court properly dismissed the claims against defendant-parish even though it filed only a concurrence in defendant-Archdiocese’s dispositive motions. Plaintiff served as priest of the parish from approximately 2012 through 2016 and claimed it owed him salary, a housing allowance, and expenses. A 2015 parish resolution purportedly transferred a parish house to him as payment, but the Archdiocese disputed the transfer. In a 2017 action over the property and parish control, plaintiff counterclaimed for unpaid compensation and related expenses. The parties later executed a binding settlement requiring dismissal of the complaint and counterclaim with prejudice, and a consent judgment returned title to the church. Plaintiff filed this action in 2021 seeking compensation again. The trial court dismissed the claims against both defendants. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s argument that the parish could not obtain summary disposition without filing its own motion. Because its concurrence expressly adopted the Archdiocese’s motions and plaintiff had notice and an opportunity to respond, “[e]ven if the concurrence did not independently satisfy the requirements for a motion, MCR 2.116(I)(1) permitted the trial court to enter judgment in favor of St. Simon.” Turning to res judicata, the court found all three elements satisfied. The prior action was decided on the merits because “[a] voluntary dismissal with prejudice is treated as a decision on the merits for purposes of res judicata.” Plaintiff’s attacks on the authority of parish representatives, entity names, and alleged fraud constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the consent judgment. The same-party-or-privity requirement was also met. Even assuming St. Simon and St. Simeon were technically different legal entities, “the parish in the 2017 action represented the same legal rights that St. Simon asserts here,” and the entities were in privity. Finally, the present claims arose from the same transaction. “A new calculation of damages or a different legal theory, . . . does not create a new transaction.” The loss of the parish house merely changed plaintiff’s asserted damages or means of payment and “did not create a new claim arising from a different transaction.” The court also rejected his prematurity argument because “he has not identified any discovery that could alter the preclusion analysis.” Affirmed.