GEORGIA RUTH CRAWFORD-CAMBELL V GEORGE W CRAWFORD JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEORGIA RUTH CRAWFORD-CAMBELL,
a/k/a GEORGIA C. CAMBELL,
UNPUBLISHED
July 26, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 296590
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-105546-CZ
GEORGE W. CRAWFORD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TALBOT, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and GLEICHER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this defamation action, defendant appeals as of right the order dismissing plaintiff’s
cause of action and denying his motion for sanctions. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not finding plaintiff’s defamation claim to
be frivolous and in failing to impose sanctions against plaintiff. We disagree.
A trial court’s determination whether a claim was frivolous will not be reversed on appeal
unless it is clearly erroneous. Attorney General v Harkins, 257 Mich App 564, 575; 669 NW2d
296 (2003). “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.”
Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654, 661-662; 641 NW2d 245 (2002).
“Under Michigan law, a party that maintains a frivolous suit . . . is subject to sanctions
under applicable statutes and court rules.” BJ’s & Sons Constr Co, Inc v Van Sickle, 266 Mich
App 400, 404; 700 NW2d 432 (2005); see MCL 600.2591; MCR 2.114(E), (F); MCR
2.625(A)(2). A claim is “frivolous” if the party’s primary purpose in initiating the action was to
harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party, the party had no reasonable basis to believe that
the facts underlying its legal position were true, or the party’s legal position was devoid of
arguable legal merit. MCL 600.2591(3)(a).
To determine if a claim is frivolous, the claim must be evaluated at the time it was made.
In re Costs & Attorney Fees, 250 Mich App 89, 94; 645 NW2d 697 (2002). The court must
examine “the particular facts and circumstances of the claim involved.” Id. at 95. The purpose
of imposing sanctions is “to deter parties and attorneys from filing documents or asserting claims
and defenses that have not been sufficiently investigated and researched or that are intended to
-1-
serve an improper purpose.” Van Sickle, 266 Mich App at 405 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). However, sanctions should not be used to “penalize[] a party whose claim initially
appears viable but later becomes unpersuasive.” Louya v William Beaumont Hosp, 190 Mich
App 151, 163; 475 NW2d 434 (1991).
Defendant first argues that plaintiff’s defamation claim was frivolous because plaintiff
had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying the claim were true. Plaintiff
submitted an affidavit and emails that supported the allegations that defendant made defamatory
statements that were false. Specifically, plaintiff averred that her mother told her that defendant
said that plaintiff stole money from her father. Based on the record, plaintiff had a reasonable
basis to believe that the facts underlying her defamation claim were true.
Defendant next argues that plaintiff’s defamation claim was frivolous because the
complaint was filed after the limitations period expired. The limitations period for a defamation
claim is one year. MCL 600.5805(9); Mitan v Campbell, 474 Mich 21, 24-25; 706 NW2d 420
(2005). Plaintiff filed her complaint on March 3, 2008. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the
complaint did not allege that the alleged defamatory statements were made in December 2006.1
In an affidavit, plaintiff averred that defendant made the alleged defamatory statements after her
previous lawsuit against defendant was dismissed. The record establishes that the previous
lawsuit was dismissed in May 2007. Plaintiff also specifically averred that defendant made the
alleged defamatory statements in the year preceding the filing of the present lawsuit. In addition,
plaintiff submitted an email from defendant, dated February 3, 2008, in which defendant told her
that she needed to confess her “illegal acts.” Based on the record, the trial court did not clearly
err in rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s defamation claim was frivolous because it
was filed after the limitations period expired.2
Defendant also appears to argue that plaintiff’s defamation claim was frivolous
because it was barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel. A claim may be frivolous if
barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. See Energy Reserves, Inc v Consumers Power Co,
221 Mich App 210, 221; 561 NW2d 854 (1997).
1
The complaint alleged that in December 2006 plaintiff informed defendant of the joint bank
accounts that she had opened. The complaint then alleged, in a separate paragraph, that
defendant, after being informed of the whereabouts of the money belonging to the parties’ father,
made defamatory statements about plaintiff.
2
We note that defendant did not properly raise a statute of limitations defense below.
Affirmative defenses, such as a statute of limitations defense, must be stated in a party’s
responsive pleading. MCR 2.111(F)(3). “[A] defendant waives a statute of limitations defense
by failing to raise it in his first responsive pleading.” Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377, 389; 751
NW2d 431 (2008). A defendant may cure his failure to raise an affirmative defense in the first
responsive pleading by amending the pleading. Here, defendant did not assert a statute of
limitations defense in his first responsive pleading, which was his answer and affirmative
defenses. Although he raised the defense in his motion for summary disposition and motion to
dismiss, he never amended his first responsive pleading.
-2-
Res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties when the facts or
evidence essential to the action are identical to the facts or evidence in a prior action. Dart v
Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). “Res judicata requires that (1) the prior action
was decided on the merits, (2) the decree in the prior action was a final decision, (3) the matter
contested in the second case was or could have been resolved in the first, and (4) both actions
involved the same parties or their privies.” Richards v Tibaldi, 272 Mich App 522, 531; 726
NW2d 770 (2006). Res judicata does not apply if the facts change or new facts develop. In re
Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 519; 571 NW2d 750 (1997), overruled in part on
other grounds In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Defendant asserts that res judicata bars plaintiff’s complaint because “the Complaint . . .
had been previously dismissed with prejudice in a prior action” (emphasis deleted). In the prior
action, plaintiff alleged that defendant fraudulently withdrew funds from their father’s bank
accounts. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that plaintiff engaged in several fraudulent
transactions and converted thousands of dollars from their father’s bank accounts. The action
concluded with the entry of a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice. Here, the trial court
found that plaintiff’s defamation claim was based on statements made after the dismissal of the
prior action. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Plaintiff averred that defendant made the
alleged defamatory statements after the prior action was dismissed, and submitted emails from
defendant to support the averment. Accordingly, because plaintiff’s defamation claim was based
on alleged statements made after the dismissal of the prior action, the trial court did not clearly
err in rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s defamation claim was frivolous because it
was barred by res judicata.
In addition, the trial court did not clearly err in rejecting defendant’s argument that
plaintiff’s defamation claim was barred by collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel “precludes
relitigation of an issue in a subsequent, different cause of action between the same parties or their
privies when the prior proceeding culminated in a valid final judgment and the issue was actually
and necessarily determined in the prior proceeding.” Ditmore v Michalik, 244 Mich App 569,
577; 625 NW2d 462 (2001). Collateral estoppel “requires that (1) a question of fact essential to
the judgment was actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, (2) the same
parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, and (3) there was mutuality of
estoppel.” Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 585; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). Because the parties
stipulated to the dismissal of the prior action, no issue was actually and necessarily litigated.
Accordingly, the prior action did not bar plaintiff’s defamation claim.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.