Landlord-tenant dispute alleging a violation of the anti-lockout statute; MCL 600.2918(2) & (3); Good-faith exception; MCL 600.2918(3)(c); Due process; Cunningham v. Wayne Cnty.

The court held that the circuit court did not err by dismissing plaintiff-tenant’s case because defendant-landlord had a good-faith belief that plaintiff had moved out when he changed the locks. It also held that her due process rights were not violated. Defendant sought to evict plaintiff from her rental home. The district court entered an order permitting defendant to apply for an order of eviction to evict plaintiff if she had not moved out by a certain date. Plaintiff moved her belongings out and defendant had the locks changed. Plaintiff then sued defendant under the anti-lockout statute. The circuit court concluded that defendant did not violate the anti-lockout statute because plaintiff had already moved out when he changed the locks. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the circuit court erred when it dismissed her case because defendant was required to obtain an order of eviction before changing the locks. It noted that the trial court’s determinations that defendant “believed in good faith that plaintiff had abandoned the premises, and after diligent inquiry had reason to believe that plaintiff did not intend to return, and current rent had not been paid . . . ,” were supported by ample evidence. The court also rejected her claim that her due-process rights were violated when the circuit court dismissed her case. “That plaintiff had an attorney in the circuit court, had notice of the evidentiary hearing, and attended the hearing at which she testified, all establish that she had notice of the nature of the proceedings and an opportunity to hear and respond to the evidence in the case at a hearing in front of an impartial decision-maker.” Affirmed.