MARILYN FROLING REVOC LIV TRUST V BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARILYN FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, FOR PUBLICATION April 9, 2009 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 275580 LC No. 2004-062223-CZ BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, DONALD DREYFUSS, ELISA DREYFUSS, MARY D. BRIGHT TRUST, NANCY R. VLASIC REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, JOHN RAKOLTA, JR., TERRY RAKOLTA, and THOMAS VARBEDIAN, Advance Sheets Version Defendants, and ALAN KIRILUK, MARILYNNE KIRILUK, ROGER B. SMITH, BARBARA SMITH, GREGG WILLIAMS, CINDI WILLIAMS, and CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Defendants-Appellees. MARILYN FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 277438 LC No. 2004-062223-CZ ALAN KIRILUK, MARILYNNE KIRILUK, ROGER B. SMITH, BARBARA SMITH, GREGG WILLIAMS, CINDI WILLIAMS, and CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Defendants-Appellees, -1- and BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, DONALD DREYFUSS, ELISA DREYFUSS, MARY D. BRIGHT TRUST, NANCY R. VLASIC REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, JOHN RAKOLTA, JR., TERRY RAKOLTA, and THOMAS VARBEDIAN, Defendants. MARILYN FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v No. 278383 LC No. 2004-062223-CZ BLOOMFIELD HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, DONALD DREYFUSS, ELISA DREYFUSS, MARY D. BRIGHT TRUST, NANCY R. VLASIC REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, JOHN RAKOLTA, JR., TERRY RAKOLTA, and THOMAS VARBEDIAN, Defendants, and ALAN KIRILUK, MARILYNNE KIRILUK, ROGER B. SMITH, BARBARA SMITH, GREGG WILLIAMS, and CINDI WILLIAMS, Defendants-Appellees/CrossAppellants, and CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Defendant-Appellee. -2- Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Whitbeck, JJ. MURPHY, P.J. (concurring). I concur in affirming in part and reversing in part. Summary disposition in favor of defendants was appropriate because the statute of limitations had expired, Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Services, 472 Mich 263; 696 NW2d 646 (2005), amended 473 Mich 1205 (2005); Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644; 754 NW2d 899 (2008), and the claim was untimely under MCL 600.5805(10). Further, I agree with the majority that summary disposition under the facts presented was not premature. I also agree with the majority’s discussion regarding governmental immunity and inverse condemnation, as well as its analysis of the attorney fee and cost issues. I fail to see any point, however, in citing unpublished opinions in this appeal when published opinions with precedential value exist. /s/ William B. Murphy -3-