ROBERT KAMPHAUS V DAVID A BURNS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT KAMPHAUS, DONNA KAMPHAUS,
MICHAEL CIUCHNA, KRISTY CIUCHNA,
GERALD RYNKOWSKI, and VIRGINIA
RYNKOWSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
February 26, 2009
Plaintiffs-Appellees/CrossAppellants,
v
No. 279962
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2003-005067-CZ
DAVID A. BURNS,
Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee,
and
JOHN DOE and MARY ROE,
Defendants.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Jansen and Meter, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result reached by the majority with respect to the issues raised by plaintiffs
on cross-appeal. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that defendant
was entitled to case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O).
It is true that the ultimate verdict in this case was less favorable to plaintiffs than was the
case evaluation award of $7,500. However, as noted by the majority, plaintiffs had abandoned
their claim for money damages by the time of the bench trial in this matter. The trial court
ultimately concluded that certain of defendant’s actions had not violated the deed restrictions, but
that certain of defendant’s other actions had constituted “technical violations” of the deed
restrictions. Because no money damages were awarded, the trial court’s verdict in this regard
essentially amounted to a declaratory judgment.
Suits for declaratory relief are equitable in nature. Coffee-Rich, Inc v Dep’t of
Agriculture, 1 Mich App 225, 228; 135 NW2d 594 (1965). Although case evaluation sanctions
are generally mandatory when the ultimate verdict is less favorable to the rejecting party than the
-1-
case evaluation award would have been, MCR 2.403(O)(1), sanctions are merely discretionary
when the verdict awards equitable relief, MCR 2.403(O)(5). When a verdict awards equitable
relief, case evaluation sanctions “may” be awarded, MCR 2.403(O)(5), but only when “it is fair
to award costs under all of the circumstances,” MCR 2.403(O)(5)(b).
The trial court’s verdict was essentially a declaratory judgment, and therefore clearly
amounted to an award of “equitable relief” within the meaning of MCR 2.403(O)(5). See
Coffee-Rich, Inc, 1 Mich App at 228; see also Forest City Enterprises, Inc v Leemon Oil Co, 228
Mich App 57, 79-80; 577 NW2d 150 (1998). Therefore, the court was entitled to award case
evaluation sanctions to defendant only if doing so would have been “fair . . . under all of the
circumstances.” MCR 2.403(O)(5)(b). I conclude that it would not have been fair to award case
evaluation sanctions under the circumstances of this case because, as the trial court properly
determined, defendant had, indeed, violated the deed restrictions in many respects. Even
assuming that many of defendant’s violations were merely “technical violations”, and therefore
not sufficiently egregious to warrant relief for plaintiffs, defendant still acted wrongfully by
violating the deed restrictions in the first instance.
Although I disagree with the trial court’s exact reasoning, I conclude that it reached the
correct result in denying defendant’s motion for case evaluation sanctions. See MCR
2.403(O)(5)(b). In general, this Court should affirm when the trial court has reached the correct
result, even if it has done so for the wrong reason. Netter v Bowman, 272 Mich App 289, 308;
725 NW2d 353 (2006). I would affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for case
evaluation sanctions in this case.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
