Land contract dispute; Motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) & (10); Whether the trial court required defendant to submit evidence beyond his pleadings; Whether it considered evidence attached to his pleadings

The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to plaintiffs-Christopher and Robin Dinsdale under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). This case arose after they purchased property from defendant-Staggs by land contract. He argued that “under MCR 2.116(C)(8), the trial court erred in looking beyond well-pled allegations in” his counterclaim (which alleged breach of contract, “that any addendum was void due to duress and misrepresentation,” and sought a judgment of forfeiture) “for admissible evidence in support of those claims.” He was correct in asserting that “in deciding a motion under (C)(8), the court only considers the pleadings and those documents attached to the pleadings.” However, consideration of such evidence was permitted under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiffs offered, among other evidence, the affidavit of Robyn and text messages between her and Staggs’ mother, M, to support their “position that Staggs was a willing participant in drafting and a benefactor” of the 2018 addendum. In her affidavit, Robyn claimed that it “was entered into because Staggs was unable 1) to pay outstanding mortgage and utility payments, and homeowner association’s dues; and 2) to perform improvements on the property promised in the land contract.” She further claimed that “at no time during the addendum’s execution did Staggs express an inability to understand the document and that Staggs provided information to fill in the addendum’s blanks, including (a) the down payment, (b) the purchase price, (c) the monthly payment, and (d) that he wanted any extra money sent to” M. Text messages between Robyn and M “evidenced Robyn acting in accordance with the addendum by, for example, paying outstanding bills and depositing overages into an account shared between” Staggs and M. Staggs admitted “he did not file an affidavit and did not submit evidence in opposition to Robyn’s affidavit.” He argued that he was not required to show anything beyond his pleadings. But the court found that his failure to offer anything additional left “the Dinsdales’ evidence uncontroverted, . . . making summary disposition of Staggs’ counterclaim under MCR 2.116(C)(10) appropriate.”