GEOFFREY J GLADSTONE MD V FRANK SIMON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEOFFREY J. GLADSTONE, M.D., and
BENORA GLADSTONE,
UNPUBLISHED
October 12, 2004
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 248061
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2002-040309-CH
FRANK SIMON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiffs own lakefront property over which defendant holds an easement. The easement
prohibited grantees from paving or making topographical changes to the land, but allowed for the
temporary anchoring of a boat or other pleasure craft. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting that
defendant and his predecessor in interest committed trespass and waste. Plaintiffs sought
damages and equitable relief, including extinguishment of the easement. Both parties accepted
the case evaluation award. Plaintiffs objected to defendant’s motion for entry of judgment on the
ground that the court had not adjudicated their equitable claims, including their requested
injunction to prevent the installation of a boat dock. The trial court granted defendant’s motion,
concluding that because the parties had accepted the case evaluation, no issues remained to be
adjudicated.
Plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking a declaration that the construction of a temporary
boat dock was not authorized by defendant’s easement and constituted a trespass. Defendant
moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that plaintiffs’ claims
were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court agreed with defendant and granted the
motion. We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. Maiden v
Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
Res judicata applies when “the matter contested in the second action was or could have
been resolved in the first . . ..” Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). The
issue of defendant’s entitlement to build a temporary dock on the easement property arose before
-1-
the first action was submitted to case evaluation. The parties could have, but did not, raise the
issue whether the terms of the easement allowed defendant to build a temporary boat dock on the
easement property. A case evaluation panel may determine an equitable claim when determining
money damages. MCR 2.403(K)(3). A case evaluation award accepted by all parties constitutes
a final decision on the merits of all claims raised in the case. MCR 2.403(M)(1); CAM
Construction v Lake Edgewood Condominium Ass’n, 465 Mich 549, 555; 640 NW2d 256 (2002).
The parties accepted the case evaluation award, and the trial court entered an order of dismissal
disposing of all claims. Therefore, the trial court in this case correctly found that the doctrine of
res judicata barred plaintiffs’ claims.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
