# Sprague v. Buhagiar

> Michigan Court of Appeals · September 8, 1995 · 213 Mich. App. 310

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739374

## Case

- **Full name:** Sprague v. Buhagiar
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 8, 1995
- **Citations:** 213 Mich. App. 310; 539 N.W.2d 587
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cooper
- **Judges:** Taylor, Kelly, Cooper
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739374

## Opinion text

J. R. Cooper, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result but would rely on St John v Richard, 272 Mich 670 ; 262 NW 437 (1935). In that case, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a land contract. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant failed to pay pursuant to the agreement. The defendant filed an answer to the declaration, claiming the land contract should be set aside on grounds of fraud. Despite his answer to the complaint, a default judgment was entered because of the defendant’s failure, to file a bond to restrain the prosecution of the action. The defendant did not appeal the entry of the default judgment.
When the defendant attempted to raise the issue of fraud in a subsequent action, the circuit court held that the prior judgment in the action for payments on the land contract was res judicata with respect to the issue of any alleged fraud committed by the plaintiff-vendor. The circuit court noted that the defendant had caused his own dilemma by failing to present the defense in the prior proceeding. The circuit court stated:
"Plaintiff and defendant were both in a court of competent jurisdiction. That court decided defendant owed certain installments on a land contract. If the contract was obtained by fraud, then defendant did not owe the installments. Defendant did not appeal. The decision stands. Under such circumstances, it is idle to ask another court, with the same parties before it, to declare the same contract to be of no binding force because of fraud.” [Id. at 674.]
In the case presently before this Court, defen *316 dants entered into a land contract with plaintiff, who subsequently stopped making payments. Defendants filed suit in the district court and obtained a judgment of land contract forfeiture by default on the basis of plaintiff’s failure to respond. Plaintiff did not appeal the district court’s decision, but instead filed an action in the circuit court that is the basis of this appeal. In the circuit court action, plaintiff sought rescission of the land contract on the basis of fraud. Pursuant to the holding in St John , plaintiff was obligated to raise the defense of fraud in the district court action, because res judicata operates as a bar to the maintenance of the circuit court action. Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s conclusion that it was error to deny the motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739374. Public record. Not legal advice.