PHILIP YUNKER V MADALYN BECKETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILIP YUNKER and BETTY YUNKER,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2008
Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants-Appellants,
V
No. 274328
Roscommon Circuit Court
LC No. 05-725412-CH
MADALYN BECKET,
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Markey and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal by right from the trial court’s order requiring them to pay defendant’s
attorney fees and costs. The court concluded that plaintiffs’ complaint and affidavits contained
false information, or were not otherwise well grounded in fact, and thus that sanctions were
appropriate per MCR 2.114(E), MCR 2.625(A), and MCL 600.2591. We affirm. This appeal
has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This case concerns a dispute over a strip of real property running along part of the
boundary line between the parties’ respective lots. Plaintiffs’ driveway, originally gravel but
later paved, extended into defendant’s lot. In an attempt to claim a prescriptive easement for
their encroachment, plaintiffs submitted a complaint and a pair of affidavits, all of which stated
that the driveway was paved in approximately 1990 and that plaintiffs had a written agreement
with defendant’s predecessor in interest regarding the encroachment. Plaintiffs attached a copy
of this purported agreement to their complaint.
At trial, however, the trial court noted that the testimony of one of the plaintiffs and that
of another witness seriously contradicted plaintiffs’ complaint and affidavits regarding the date
the driveway was paved. The trial court also found, on the basis of extensive testimony
regarding the mental incapacity of defendant’s predecessor in interest, that the predecessor’s
signature on the purported agreement was a forgery.
A trial court’s decision to award attorney fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 422; 668 NW2d 199 (2003). A trial court’s
finding that a claim was frivolous will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Kitchen v
Kitchen, 465 Mich 654, 661; 641 NW2d 245 (2002). “A decision is clearly erroneous where,
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. at 661-662.
-1-
Plaintiffs’ brief on appeal makes no mention of the trial court’s findings. Instead,
plaintiffs’ sole argument is that the statements of two of plaintiffs’ witnesses regarding the width
of the then-unpaved driveway could provide a reasonable basis for believing that the factual
assertions underlying plaintiffs’ legal position were true. The testimony of these witnesses,
however, does not explain, much less excuse, the false information in plaintiffs’ filings and the
forged document attached to their complaint.
Plaintiffs fail to argue, let alone establish, that the trial court clearly erred in concluding
from plaintiffs’ reliance on plainly false documentation that they were pressing a claim not well
grounded in fact. Consequently, plaintiffs have failed to establish that the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding sanctions for a frivolous claim.
We affirm.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
