The trial court’s jurisdiction; Delay in ruling on a motion for default judgment; Arguments related to a defendant’s alleged reliance on an order in a prior case; Adequacy of the trial court’s factual findings; Judicial misconduct claim; Monetary sanctions award due to frivolous claims; MCL 600.2591; Waiver; Res judicata; Alpena Cnty Bd of Cnty Rd Comm’rs v Tadajewski

Holding, among other things, that the trial court had jurisdiction, that it did not reversibly err in handling plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, and that there was no error in its award of costs and fees to the Road Commission defendants, the court affirmed. In a prior case, Alpena Cnty, defendant-County Road Commission alleged that plaintiff “had been placing dangerous obstructions on the portion of the roadway adjacent to his property.” The trial court in that case granted the Road Commission summary disposition. While his appeal in that case was pending, plaintiff filed this action seeking to quiet title as to the portions of the road, “and he continued to allege that his property had been improperly altered and infringed upon.” In addition to the Road Commission and two of its attorneys, plaintiff named Berg Assessing & Consulting and its owner (collectively referred to as BAC) as defendants. The trial court granted the Road Commission defendants summary disposition. It later granted BAC’s motions to set aside the default entered due to lack of proper service, and for summary disposition. On appeal, plaintiff first asserted “that because the register of actions contains no proof of service of a summons, the trial court” had no jurisdiction to grant BAC summary disposition. But the court found this issue meritless given that all “defendants, including BAC, contested plaintiff’s claims on the merits.” Further, it saw “no basis to conclude that the trial court otherwise lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it did.” As to his claim that “the trial court took too long to rule on his motion for a default judgment after” the default was entered against BAC and that this prejudiced him, “BAC operated under the assumption that a default judgment had already been entered, and it moved to have it set aside, providing good cause—improper service of the complaint—and an affidavit of meritorious defense.” In regard to the sanctions award, plaintiff waived his issues as to the lack of a hearing on his objections. Further, the record showed that the trial court allowed him “to raise his objections at the motion hearing, and accepted and considered [his] additional written objections,” before issuing its order awarding the Road Commission defendants $46,334 in costs and fees.