Res judicata; Adair v Michigan; Decision on the merits in the prior action; Same parties or their privies; “Privity & “privy”; Sloan v Madison Heights; Standing & powers of a personal representative (PR); Claims that were or could have been resolved in the prior action; Effect of case evaluation acceptance; CAM Constr v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass’n; Magdich & Assoc, PC v Novi Dev Assoc, LLC; MCR 2.403(M)(1)

Holding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata and also, in light of CAM Constr, that his case evaluation award acceptance in the prior action precluded him from pursuing them here, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-condo association. The case arose from a dispute over “the distribution of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale of a” condo owned by plaintiff’s late father. He filed the prior action in 2019 and this one in 2021. The court reviewed the requirements for res judicata. As to the first, it concluded that, in “light of the trial court’s dismissal of unjust enrichment and surplus proceed claims through summary disposition and the subsequent dismissal of the case in its entirety following the acceptance of case evaluation, the prior litigation was decided on the merits for” res judicata purposes. As to the same parties or their privies requirement, the court held that, due to plaintiff’s relationship to his father’s estate as the PR, privity was established. As to the final requirement, the trial court informed him “that the claim for unjust enrichment and surplus proceeds belonged to the estate. Despite a fiduciary duty as the” estate’s PR, he “did not seek to amend the complaint to raise the claims in the representative capacity. Instead, plaintiff proceeded to case evaluation and accepted the award. Although plaintiff submitted that he needed to settle the first action to acquire the proceeds to purchase the assignment from the estate, he had the capacity to act and pursue the claim as the [PR] without any delay or expenditure or need for an assignment.” As a result, the court found that the final requirement was met because “the second action might have been presented to the trial court in the first action.” It further determined that CAM Constr provided an alternative ground for affirming the trial court. In the prior action, “plaintiff participated in and accepted the case evaluation award. The panel recommended” among other things that he receive $3,000, to be paid by the defendant. “Consequently, the trial court entered a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice. The order cited the parties’ acceptance of the case evaluation award under MCR 2.403 and defendant’s payment in full as the reason to dismiss the case with prejudice. Plaintiff’s acceptance of the case evaluation award resulted in the dismissal of all claims, even the claims to which the trial court granted summary disposition.”