MICHAEL D CREER V CRAIG N HILLS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL D. CREER,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 218183
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 98-008755-CZ
CRAIG N. HILLS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: McDonald, P.J. and Smolenski and K. F. Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff filed an action against C N Hills, Inc. in a construction dispute. The circuit court
entered a stipulated order referring the matter to arbitration. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the
order and motion for rehearing were denied. While the motion for rehearing was pending,
plaintiff filed the instant case against Craig N. Hills, president of C N Hills, Inc. The trial court
granted summary disposition, finding that the second action was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.
MCR 2.203(A) states:
In a pleading that states a claim against an opposing party, the pleader
must join every claim that the pleader has against that opposing party at the time
of serving the pleading, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the action and does not require for its adjudication the presence
of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
This court rule codifies the long-standing decisional rule against splitting a cause of
action. Rogers v Colonial Fed Savings & Loan Ass’n of Grosse Pointe Woods, 405 Mich 607,
618; 275 NW2d 499 (1979).
The applicability of res judicata is a legal question that this Court reviews de novo.
Bergeron v Busch, 228 Mich App 618, 620; 579 NW2d 124 (1998). Michigan has adopted a
-1-
broad application of res judicata that bars claims arising out of the same transaction that plaintiff
could have brought but did not. Id. at 620-621. The doctrine serves a two-fold purpose: to
ensure the finality of judgments and to prevent repetitive litigation, including the splitting of
causes of action. Id. at 621. A plaintiff’s ability to split his claim is limited by the doctrine of
claim preclusion/res judicata. Id. at 622.
Here, it appears that plaintiff split his claims to avoid the effect of the arbitration order
entered in the first case. Both actions are based on the same occurrence. The defendants are
essentially the same. The second action does not allege a new basis for liability. The claim
against the builder’s trust fund implicates the corporation’s liability, and not the individual
plaintiff’s. MCL 570.151; MSA 26.331. The trial court properly found that plaintiff attempted
to split his cause of action.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
