Breach of contract & unjust enrichment action involving a trust; Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(6) (another action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim); Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS, LLC; Whether an action remains “pending”; Whether the parties were the same in both actions; Dairyland Ins Co v Mews; Principle that all issues need not be identical between the two cases; JD Candler Roofing Co, Inc v Dickson

The court held that based on the evidence the parties produced supporting their summary-disposition arguments, “the trial court did not improperly grant summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(6).” Plaintiff sued defendant, a trust, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Before this action was filed in circuit court, related actions were filed in probate court. The circuit court ultimately granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, “reasoning that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, and it would be practical for the probate court to decide the issues raised in the circuit court action.” On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the circuit court “failed to conduct any analysis under MCR 2.116(C)(6) and simply concluded that the probate court would be a better forum for plaintiff’s claims from a practicality standpoint. While the circuit court included little direct analysis of the merits of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(6) in its oral ruling or written order,” the court found “on de novo review that summary disposition was appropriate.” The court concluded that the probate court action remained “pending for purposes of MCR 2.116(C)(6).” The evidence showed that “the probate court action was pending at the time the circuit court granted defendant summary disposition, and plaintiff has provided little meaningful argument or evidence otherwise. The evidence also demonstrate[d] that plaintiff’s circuit court action involves the same parties and the same claims as the consolidated probate court action for purposes of MCR 2.116(C)(6).” In addition, while “not identical, the parties in the probate court actions included” plaintiff-O’Dovero “as well as individual trustees on behalf of” the trust. “Thus, the parties are the same for purposes of MCR 2.116(C)(6).” Further, there was no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the claims in his circuit court action are not substantially the same as the claims at issue in the probate court action. Affirmed.