GARY SHUTT V CENTURY 21 CROW REALTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GARY SHUTT and MICHELLE SHUTT,
UNPUBLISHED
May 17, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V
CENTURY 21 CROW REALTY, JON T. CROW,
SHARON HOUSTON, DAWN TIMM, JAMES
ANDERSON, and LAURIE ANDERSON,
No. 224971
Alpena Circuit Court
LC No. 98-002813-AV
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Owens and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal by leave granted the circuit court’s order affirming the district court’s
judgment of no cause of action. We vacate the district court’s orders and decision and remand to
the circuit court for further proceedings.
In 1993, plaintiffs purchased a home from the Andersons. Plaintiffs alleged that there
were many defects with the home and filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging one count for
rescission and fraudulent misrepresentation.1 After deciding that plaintiffs’ claim was primarily
equitable in nature, the circuit court struck plaintiffs’ jury demand and ordered that the case be
submitted to mediation. The case was evaluated for less than the circuit court’s jurisdictional
amount2 and it was removed to the district court.
Because the circuit court found plaintiffs’ action to be primarily equitable, and because
district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are historically equitable in nature,
MCL 600.8315,3 the circuit court erred in sending plaintiffs’ claims to the district court.4
1
Although these are two separate claims, neither the court nor the parties separated them into
individual counts.
2
MCL 600.8301, amended by 1996 PA 388, which changed the district court’s jurisdictional
amount from $10,000 to $25,000. At the time of this case, the district court had jurisdiction over
cases that did not exceed $10,000.
3
This statute was amended by 1996 PA 374, which added a second sentence, “However, the
(continued…)
-1-
Consequently, any actions taken by the district court are void because it lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction over equitable claims. See MCL 600.8315; Todd v Dep’t of Corrections, 232
Mich App 623, 627-628; 591 NW2d 375 (1998). Indeed, we note that the district court relied on
the law of the case doctrine to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand. The circuit court, as noted,
previously refused plaintiffs’ request for a jury because of the equitable nature of their action.
Because the district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dispositive, we decline to
address the remainder of plaintiffs’ issues on appeal.
We vacate the district court’s orders as null and void. We remand to the circuit court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion and do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
(…continued)
district court has jurisdiction and power to make any order proper to fully effectuate the district
court’s jurisdiction and judgment.”
4
We note that the circuit court removed plaintiffs’ claims to the district court pursuant to MCL
600.641 and MCR 4.003, which have since been repealed. MCL 600.641 was repealed by 1996
PA 374, § 5, effective January 1, 1997, and MCR 4.003 was repealed on May 8, 1997.
According to Hurt v Michael’s Food Center, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No.
232079, issued February 8, 2002), the repeal of MCL 600.641 applies retroactively.
-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.
