LILLIAN TOCCO V MICHAEL ELICH

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LILLIAN TOCCO and CHRISTOPHER TOCCO, UNPUBLISHED August 10, 1999 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 209177 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 96-648068 CZ MICHAEL ELICH and GERALDINE ELICH, Defendants-Appellees. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and W. E. Collette*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Plaintiffs appeal by right from the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition in this action alleging undue influence and conversion of assets belonging to a now-deceased family member. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 1 Specifically, plaintiffs assert that because their cause of action for conversion was never considered nor addressed in the prior probate and conservatorship proceedings involving the decedent, and because the assets that are the basis of this litigation were never part of either the conservatorship or probate inventories or estates, the trial court’s grant of summary disposition was improper. We disagree. While plaintiffs’ arguments may be relevant to the doctrine of res judicata or “claim preclusion,” they are not relevant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel or “issue preclusion,” which precludes relitigation of issues previously decided against plaintiffs regardless of whether the same cause of action or property was involved in the prior litigation. See, e.g., People v Gates, 434 Mich 146, 154; 452 NW2d 627 (1990). Here, the trial court reasoned that plaintiffs’ claims in this case depended upon a * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ relitigation of issues previously decided against them in the probate court action, i.e., issues of undue influence and capacity. Plaintiffs have not offered any arguments responsive to that reasoning. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ William E. Collette 1 Although the trial court’s ruling does not so specify, it does appear that summary disposition was granted on the grounds of collateral estoppel. -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.