Background
Father Florian Radu Roman served as priest of a Romanian Orthodox parish in Westland from approximately 2012 through 2016. He alleged that the parish failed to pay all promised salary, housing allowances, and expenses. In 2015, the parish council purportedly approved transferring a parish house to Roman as payment, but the Archdiocese disputed the parish’s authority to make the transfer.
Litigation over control of the parish and title to the house began in 2017. Roman counterclaimed for unpaid compensation and reimbursement of expenditures. The parties entered a binding settlement in October 2018 under which the church retained the house, Roman vacated it, and the complaint and counterclaim were dismissed with prejudice. After a consent judgment implemented that agreement, Roman filed this 2021 action seeking compensation under breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, tortious-interference, and civil-conspiracy theories.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for both defendants under Michigan Court Rule 2.116(C)(7). It held that res judicata barred Roman’s claims because the prior dismissal with prejudice constituted a decision on the merits, the two actions involved the same parties or their privies, and the present claims were or could have been resolved in the 2017 action.
The court rejected Roman’s argument that his present injury arose only when the settlement deprived him of the house. He had already pleaded unpaid-compensation claims before settling, knew the church would retain the property, and could have pursued additional payment or expressly reserved further claims. The court also held that dismissal of St. Simon was proper despite its filing only a concurrence in the Archdiocese’s motions because Roman received notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, and the trial court could grant judgment sua sponte under MCR 2.116(I)(1).
Roman’s challenges to the authority of parish representatives, the entities’ names, and alleged fraud were impermissible collateral attacks on the consent judgment. Even if St. Simon and the parish named in the earlier action were technically distinct entities, they were in privity because the earlier parish represented and protected the same interests in the house and alleged compensation obligation.
Key Takeaways
- A voluntary dismissal with prejudice entered through a settlement constitutes a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes.
- Changing a damages calculation or legal theory does not create a new transaction when both actions arise from the same services, alleged nonpayment, property transfer, and related dispute.
- A court may grant summary disposition to a party that did not file a separate motion when the affected litigant had notice, a meaningful opportunity to respond, and the record establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties settling litigation must address or expressly reserve all claims arising from the underlying transaction. A litigant cannot later repackage claims already asserted—or claims that could have been asserted—merely because the settlement changed the alleged means of satisfying the obligation.
It also confirms that technical differences in organizational names will not defeat preclusion when the entities assert the same legal rights and the earlier litigant adequately represented the later party’s interests.