IONIA M RICHARD V NORTHVILLE PSYCHIATRIC HOSP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
IONIA M. RICHARD,
UNPUBLISHED
March 23, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
NORTHVILLE PSYCHIATRIC, KATHLEEN
WILLIAMS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH, and THOMAS ADAMS,
No. 244918
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000525-CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Saad and Bandstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit order granting summary disposition in favor
of defendant Department of Community Health (DCH) and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. We
affirm.
Plaintiff filed identical complaints alleging various contract and discrimination claims in
both the Ingham Circuit Court and the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint on DCH’s motion for summary disposition. Instead of appealing that
decision, plaintiff pursued this case in the circuit court. After the circuit court also dismissed her
claims, plaintiff filed this appeal.
Plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing her complaint on the merits and
in relying on the Court of Claims decision. But she fails to recognize the dispositive issue. The
Court of Claims decision barred plaintiff from relitigating the same cause of action in the circuit
court under the doctrine of res judicata.
“[T]he doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of
action as that raised in the first suit . . . .” Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717; 223 NW2d
316 (1974). The doctrine of res judicata is summarized in Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586; 597
NW2d 82 (1999), as follows:
Res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties when the evidence
or essential facts are identical. A second action is barred when (1) the first action
was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or
-1-
could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties
or their privies. [Citations omitted.]
“A judgment is considered to be a determination on the merits, and thereby triggers the doctrine
of res judicata upon relitigation, even if the action was resolved by a summary or default
judgment.” Detroit v Nortown Theatre, Inc, 116 Mich App 386, 392; 323 NW2d 411 (1982),
citing Braxton, supra.
“[T]he [most] difficult aspect of res judicata is [often] determining if the trials involve the
same cause of action.” Nortown Theatre, Inc, supra at 393. But here, plaintiff filed two
identical complaints, so there can be no dispute that the two cases involve the same cause of
action. Both cases also involve the same parties, and the Court of Claims rendered a final
judgment on the merits when it granted DCH’s motion for summary disposition. As a result, the
doctrine of res judicata barred plaintiff’s attempt to relitigate these same claims in the circuit
court after the Court of Claims had dismissed them.
Plaintiff also argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing her claims against
defendants Adams and Williams for improper service of process. But that did not happen.
Although the circuit court discussed service at the motion hearing, it specifically stated that it
would not decide that question. Instead, the court dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action, including
the claims against defendants Adams and Williams, on an independent basis. There is no lower
court decision regarding the adequacy of service of process for this Court to review.
We affirm.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
-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.
