The Michigan Court of Appeals, in Windrush, Inc v Vanpopering, Case No. 315958 (June 19, 2014), concluded that a plaintiff can maintain an action for statutory conversion stemming from a defendant’s alleged violation of the Michigan Builders’ Trust Fund Act (MBTFA).
The appellate court observed that nothing in the MBTFA indicates a legislative attempt to fashion an exclusive remedy for a trust fund violation, quite the contrary.
Similarly, when drafting MCL 600.2919a, the Michigan Legislature provided that a statutory conversion claim can be made “in addition to any other right or remedy” provided by law or otherwise.
Therefore, while claims for the conversion of money – as would be the case when combining a claim under MBTFA with §2919a – are often difficult to prove given the unique evidentiary hurdles §2919a mandates, the Windrush decision makes clear such a claim is wholly permitted and is in keeping with the remedial provisions of the MBTFA.
PartnerMatthew J. Boettcher is a partner in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office and Co-leader of Plunkett Cooney’s Commercial Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates his practice in the area of commercial litigation with ...
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
Topics
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Business Torts
- Commercial Real Estate
- Contracts
- Real Estate
- Coronavirus
- COVID-19
- Civil Litigation
- privacy
- Bankruptcy
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Commercial Leasing
- Commercial Loans
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Shareholder Liability
- Insurance
- Tax Law
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Pensions
- Standing
- Fraud Activity
- Risk Management
- Cyber Attack
- Biometric Data
- Banking Law
- Cybersecurity
- Statute of Limitations
- e-Commerce
- Internet Law
- e-Discovery
- Non-compete Agreements
- Venue
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Clawback
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Receiverships
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Garnishments
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
Recent Updates
- Proliferation of Security Cameras, Drones Doesn't Necessarily Reduce Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Law
- Does Sympathy or Empathy Have a Place in the Courtroom?
- No Light Yet at End of COVID-19 Real Estate Tunnel
- When are Clear, Unambiguous Contracts Nonetheless Ambiguous?
- What the Future may Hold for Michigan Real Estate Foreclosures and Evictions
- The Dispute Subject to Arbitration, or is it? Who Decides?
- Illinois Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Door on Non-residents' Product Liability Claims Against Non-resident Defendants for Injuries Suffered Outside State
- Supreme Court Rules Fully Funded Pension Plans Cannot be Sued Under ERISA for Mismanagement
- A Day in Someone Else’s Shoes: Can Mortgagees Challenge Ad Valorem Assessments?
- Landlords may be able to Recover Future Damages Even After Tenants Vacate Leased Premises