MONEY SOURCE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC V ANN ARBOR COMMERCE BANK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MONEY SOURCE FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
February 24, 2009
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 282894
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 03-001378-CZ
ANN ARBOR COMMERCE BANK,
Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee,
and
NATIONAL CITY BANK,
Third-Party Defendant/CrossPlaintiff-Appellee,
and
CONTINENTAL CAPITAL SECURITIES, INC.,
and CONTINENTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
SECURITIES,
Third-Party Defendants,
and
WILLIAM DAVIS and WILLIAM J. FAULKNER,
Third-Party Defendants/CrossDefendants.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and O’Connell and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
-1-
After remand from this Court, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant Ann
Arbor Commerce Bank (AACB) and third-party defendant National City Bank (National City).
Plaintiff Money Source Financial Services, Inc., appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal has
been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The facts underlying this case are summarized in the unpublished opinion that this Court
issued in 2006. Money Source Financial Services v Ann Arbor Commerce Bank, unpublished
opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 21, 2006 (Docket No. 270084). In
that opinion, this Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of
plaintiff and remanded, stating, “[W]e hold that Money Source is liable to AACB and National
City is not liable to AACB.” Id., slip op at 4.
On remand, AACB moved for entry of judgment. Plaintiff argued that the claims of
conversion, waiver, and estoppel that it had raised in its original complaint had not been
addressed by any court and remained viable. The trial court held that plaintiff’s remaining
claims had been addressed and disposed of, and it granted AACB’s motion.
We review de novo whether the trial court correctly followed this Court’s ruling on
remand. Schumacher v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich App 121, 127; 737 NW2d 782
(2007).
Generally, this Court’s ruling on an issue in a case will bind a trial court on
remand and the appellate court in subsequent appeals. The law of the case
doctrine provides:
“[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for
further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court
will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where
the facts remain materially the same.” The appellate court’s decision likewise
binds lower tribunals because the tribunal may not take action on remand that is
inconsistent with the judgment of the appellate court.
“It is the duty of the lower court . . ., on remand, to comply strictly with the
mandate of the appellate court.” However, the law of the case doctrine applies
only to issues implicitly or explicitly decided in the previous appeal. The law of
the case doctrine’s rationale is to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration
of matters once decided during the course of a single lawsuit; the doctrine does
not limit an appellate court’s power but, rather, is a discretionary rule of practice.
A trial court fails to follow the law of the case when it revisits a matter on which
this Court has already ruled. [Id. at 127-128 (citations omitted).]
This Court’s 2006 opinion stated, “Money Source is liable to AACB and National City is
not liable to AACB.” Money Source, supra, slip op at 4. Therefore, the trial court was
precluded from finding that plaintiff was not liable for some reason. Although this Court did not
expressly address the issues of estoppel and waiver and the trial court only implicitly decided the
question of waiver, plaintiff’s liability was no longer an issue before the trial court on remand.
-2-
Therefore, the trial court did not err when it declined to consider plaintiff’s liability claims and
entered judgment in favor of AACB.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
