Action arising from a land contract; Res judicata; Adair v. Michigan; Sewell v. Clean Cut Mgmt., Inc.; MCR 2.504(B)(3); Consent judgments as determinations on the merits; Ditmore v. Michalik; Ripeness; Michigan Chiropractic Council v. Commissioner of the Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs.; Privity; Fraud on the court; Principle that parties representing themselves are held to the same standard of presentation as attorneys; Totman v. Royal Oak Sch. Dist.; Whether defendants waived the res judicata defense; MCR 2.111(F)(2)

The court affirmed the grant of summary disposition for defendants in this third lawsuit on the basis of res judicata. Plaintiff signed a land contract with defendant-Thor Real Estate Company that would be treated as a lease if she defaulted. She defaulted and, in an eviction proceeding, entered into a consent judgment as to the dollar amount that remained owing. She then filed two other lawsuits, including this one. Plaintiff argued that res judicata did not bar this action because her “claims were not ripe at the time of the first lawsuit” and because the trial court did not decide the first case on the merits. The court held that the “first lawsuit between the parties, involving the eviction for failure to pay as required by the terms of the land contract, was decided on the merits” given that it was resolved by the entry of a consent judgment. As to the second element, the court held that “plaintiff’s issues in this third lawsuit could have been resolved in the first lawsuit.” Both cases originated from the land contract that she signed with Thor Real Estate. Although the claims in the two cases were distinct, they all arose from the validity of the land contract. In the first lawsuit, when defendant-Home Star “was trying to enforce the provisions of the land contract, it would have been convenient for plaintiff to have argued that the land contract was void for fraud. Plaintiff, however, failed to advance such an argument.” As to the third element, the court held that Thor Real Estate and defendant-Lakes Management “had a substantial identity of interests and a working functional relationship with Home Star, such that all three are privies.” Thor Real Estate executed the land contract with plaintiff that required her “to make monthly payments to Lakes Management. As contemplated by the land contract, Thor Real Estate executed a quitclaim deed for the property to Home Star upon plaintiff’s failure to pay as required.”