SUEZETTE A MINDER V TWP OF CLAY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SUEZETTE A. MINDER and WINTER
RANDOLPH JOSEPH HILL,
UNPUBLISHED
April 19, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 228517
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 98-000052-NO
TOWNSHIP OF CLAY, KENNETH L.
CANODE, HERMAN E. MONTVILLE, JR.,
GRAHAM RUMMEL, DENNIS SCHAIBLE,
and JAMES HAGGERTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Griffin and G. S. Buth*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In 1998, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendants of plaintiffs’ tort
claims and further held that the claims were frivolous, imposing sanctions against plaintiffs
Minder and Hill of $8,425, and against plaintiffs’ counsel, Robert J. Lord, of $5,500. Plaintiffs
appealed to this Court, and defendants filed motions to affirm and for an additional award of
sanctions against plaintiffs for filing a vexatious appeal. This Court granted the motions and
remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of defendants’ actual damages in
defending against the frivolous appeal. MCR 7.216(C). This Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for
rehearing, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal.
On remand, the trial court entered judgment of sanctions of $10,925 ($8,425 plus $2,500) against
plaintiffs Minder and Hill, and sanctions of $5,500 against Lord. Plaintiffs now appeal as of
right from the judgment of sanctions entered on June 26, 2000. We affirm.
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the judgment of sanctions is invalid because it was not
approved as to form by any party, citing out of context from MCR 2.602(B)(2). The argument is
spurious and frivolous. The trial court signed and entered defense counsel’s proposed judgment
the day of the hearing; thus, the judgment was validly entered under the plain language of MCR
2.602(B)(1). Moreover, plaintiffs had ample opportunity to challenge the proposed judgment at
the hearing or after but chose not to do so. Plaintiffs did in fact file a written response to
defendants’ motion for entry of judgment, but the objection raised—that the trial court lacked
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
subject-matter jurisdiction because there was “no pending case”—was frivolous, like virtually
every aspect of this litigation pursued by plaintiffs.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ George S. Buth
-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.
