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 I fail to see any point, however, in citing unpublished opinions in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-
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.
