Background
Plaintiffs D. Scott Teetor and Lauren Teetor brought a quiet title and trespass action against their neighbors, Bradley Cochrane and Lauren Lossing (now Cochrane), over elevated garden boxes defendants had built and maintained on plaintiffs’ property. Cochrane, a licensed attorney, represented himself and his wife throughout the litigation. What began as a two-count, four-page complaint ballooned into a sprawling dispute generating thousands of pages of filings, including a 101-page counter/cross-complaint by defendants raising 11 counts against multiple parties.
During the litigation in St. Clair Circuit Court, defendants moved to disqualify the trial judge on grounds of alleged bias, conflicts of interest, and improper conduct. The trial court denied that motion, and the chief judge affirmed on de novo review. The trial court also imposed a $50,000 security-for-costs bond on defendants under MCR 2.109, denied defendants’ motions for summary disposition and leave to amend their pleadings, entered default and default judgment against defendants, and awarded plaintiffs $2,800 in attorney fees upon finding defendants’ filings frivolous.
Defendants appealed all of these rulings, and the appeals were consolidated before the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed across the board, rejecting each of defendants’ appellate arguments. On judicial disqualification, the court found no merit in defendants’ four asserted grounds: the trial judge’s prior relationship with the Drain Commissioner’s law firm had ended before the case was filed; granting a security bond under MCR 2.109 does not constitute extortion; the ex parte communications claim was waived by failure to raise it below; and disagreement with a court’s rulings is not a basis for disqualification. The court also rejected defendants’ summary disposition arguments, holding that plaintiffs’ complaint adequately stated claims for trespass and quiet title, while defendants had failed to address the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ pleadings as required under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
The court further affirmed the denial of defendants’ motions to amend their pleadings, noting the straightforward reason that defendants never filed a proposed amended complaint as required by MCR 2.118(A)(4). On the default and default judgment, the court found defendants’ appellate argument largely “undecipherable” — defendants themselves disclaimed developing the argument — and deemed the issue unpreserved. Finally, the court upheld the attorney fee award, concluding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding defendants’ extensive filings vexatious, frivolous, and in many instances “objectively incapable of comprehension.”
Plaintiffs and the St. Clair County Drain Commissioner, as prevailing parties on appeal, were authorized to tax costs under MCR 7.219(A).
Key Takeaways
- A trial judge’s prior representation by a law firm involved in the case is not grounds for disqualification where that representation ended before the action was filed and the judge was dismissed from the related federal litigation.
- Erroneous or adverse rulings — including the imposition of a security-for-costs bond — do not constitute bias or extortion sufficient to warrant disqualification; the proper remedy is the appellate process, not collateral attack through a disqualification motion.
- A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the opposing party’s complaint; a movant who fails to address that complaint forfeits appellate review of the issue.
- Failure to attach a proposed amended complaint to a motion for leave to amend is independently sufficient grounds for denial under MCR 2.118(A)(4).
- An attorney-litigant who generates voluminous, largely incomprehensible filings in a simple neighbor dispute risks a frivolousness finding and fee award under Michigan law.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision is a pointed illustration of how procedural defaults and litigation overreach can doom an appeal even where underlying merits might exist. Defendants, led by a licensed attorney representing himself, raised numerous constitutional and ethical objections to the proceedings but failed at nearly every turn to properly preserve issues, file required documents, or develop cogent legal arguments — resulting in forfeiture or waiver of most claims before the appellate court could reach them on the merits.
The case also reinforces that judicial disqualification is a narrow remedy in Michigan. Courts will not treat adverse rulings, security bonds, or a judge’s past involvement in unrelated litigation as per se grounds for recusal, and litigants who bypass the normal appellate remedy for erroneous rulings cannot later revive those grievances through a disqualification motion.