RONALD JOSEPH POSLUNS V MARVIN OKUN AGENCY INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RONALD JOSEPH POSLUNS,
UNPUBLISHED
October 8, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MARVIN OKUN AGENCY, INC., and MARVIN
OKUN,
No. 224608
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 98-003200-CZ
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DOES 1-100,
Defendant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for
summary disposition. We affirm.1
1
As an initial matter, we note that plaintiff’s brief fails to comport with the provisions of MCR
7.212(C)(6). Despite the deficiency, we will address the merits of the claim of appeal.
Additionally, we reject plaintiff’s procedural challenges. The trial court’s decision to deny the
motion to set aside the default was not an abuse of discretion, Zaiter v Riverfront Complex, Ltd,
463 Mich 544, 552; 620 NW2d 646 (2001); MCR 2.603(D)(1). The decision to deny the motion
to disqualify the trial judge was also not an abuse of discretion. Mourad v Auto Club Ins Ass’n,
186 Mich App 715, 731; 465 NW2d 395 (1991). Plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of
impartiality by demonstrating actual prejudice requiring disqualification. Jackhill Oil Co v
Powell Production, Inc, 210 Mich App 114, 120; 532 NW2d 866 (1995). There mere fact that
the trial judge was insured by Citizens Insurance Company, a non-party, was insufficient to
warrant disqualification under MCR 2.003(B)(5). Mourad, supra. Lastly, plaintiff’s contention
that summary disposition was premature is without merit, MCR 2.116(D)(3), particularly in light
of the extensive history underlying this case. See Ireland v Edwards, 230 Mich App 607, 623;
584 NW2d 632 (1998).
-1-
Plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary
disposition of his claim pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We disagree. A motion for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim. Dolan v
Continental Airlines, 454 Mich 373, 380; 563 NW2d 23 (1997). The motion should be granted if
the claim is so manifestly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual progression could
support recovery. Id. A mere statement of a pleaders’ conclusions, unsupported by allegations
of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action. ETT Ambulance Service Corp v Rockford
Ambulance, Inc, 204 Mich App 392, 395; 516 NW2d 498 (1994). In the present case, plaintiff
merely presented allegations and failed to allege facts, with particularity, to support the
conclusive statement of some of the elements of the counts of the complaint. Accordingly, the
trial court did not erred in granting summary disposition of the negligence,2 tortious interference
with contractual relations,3 Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA),4 MCL 445.901 et seq,
misrepresentation,5 unjust enrichment,6 and promissory estoppel7 claims.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
2
See Harts v Farmers Insurance Exchange, 461 Mich 1, 10-11; 597 NW2d 47 (1999).
3
See BPS Clinical Laboratories v Blue Cross & Blue Shield (On Remand), 217 Mich App 687,
698-699; 552 NW2d 919 (1996).
4
See BPS, supra.
5
See James v City of Burton, 221 Mich App 130, 134-135; 560 NW2d 668 (1997).
6
See Barber v SMH (US), Inc, 202 Mich App 366, 375; 509 NW2d 791 (1993).
7
See Joerger v Gordon Food Service, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 173; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).
-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.
