Ahdawantazalam Aaron v. Detroit Bldg Safety Eng & Environment Dept ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
AHDAWANTAZALAM AARON, UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2023
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 364033
Wayne Circuit Court
DETROIT BUILDING SAFETY ENGINEERING LC No. 21-000006-CZ
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GADOLA, P.J., and MURRAY and MALDONADO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
As far as we can discern, plaintiff’s case encompasses an old controversy regarding a
billboard that was atop a building but removed from that building prior to plaintiff purchasing the
building. For background on this dispute, see two other decisions issued by this Court resolving
appeals involving lawsuits that plaintiff filed against other defendants based on the same billboard.
Aaron v CBS Outdoors, Inc, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
December 11, 2014 (Docket No. 317552) and Aaron v IB Property Holdings, unpublished per
curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 29, 2018 (Docket No. 338575).
The complaint plaintiff filed on his own behalf to commence this case contained only the
following allegations:
I Ahdawantazalam Aaron, purchased the property located at 8849 Grand. River
Detroit, MI 48204, from IB Property Holdings in 2007 free of any encumbrances
the property had a doubled faced advertising billboard that CBS OUT DOORS
claimed they had a valid billboard permit issued by the City of Detroit and a valid
variance issued by the Zoning Board to operate the billboards that were on my
property. I ask that you provide those two documents.
-1-
CAUSE OF ACTION
CBS OUT DOORS INC., Claimed they owned and had the right to erect, remove,
operate the advertising billboards that were on my property.
GROUNDS IN WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
1. Have all the orders and decision handed down by the appellate court, court of
claims and the supreme court and the county circuit court overturned.
2. Bring the advertising billboards that I re-erected on the roof of my building in
compliance with the highway advertising act of 1972.
This being the sum-total of the complaint, defendant moved for summary disposition on
the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, MCR
2.116(C)(8). The trial court agreed and entered the order plaintiff now appeals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8) where the opposing party has
failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. MCR 2.116(C)(8). “A motion for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the claim on the basis of the
pleadings alone and the ruling is reviewed de novo.” Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 603; 835
NW2d 413 (2013). This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to dispense
with oral arguments before deciding a motion for summary disposition. Fast Air, Inc v Knight,
235 Mich App 541, 550; 599 NW2d 489 (1999). A trial court’s decision on a motion for
reconsideration is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277
Mich App 622, 629; 750 NW2d 228 (2008).
III. ANALYSIS
As with his complaint, plaintiff’s brief on appeal contains no law, no understandable
argument, and no citation to the record. Given this posture, it is difficult to even discern what
plaintiff is seeking and how he believes the law requires any relief. In other words, plaintiff has
not primed the appellate pump with any argument, case law, or statute relative to errors in the trial
court’s decision, and we cannot make arguments for him. People v Johnson, 340 Mich App 531,
550-551; 986 NW2d 672 (2022) (“We deem abandoned remaining issues defendant raised in his
Standard 4 briefs because they are either indecipherable, entirely unsupported by citation to the
record or law, or otherwise inadequately briefed for consideration.”), citing Mudge v Macomb Co,
458 Mich 87, 105; 580 NW2d 845 (1998). See also Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94
NW2d 388 (1959). For that reason, we reject each of plaintiff’s arguments regarding the merits.
Plaintiff’s suit otherwise amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the validity of
the prior decisions related to this billboard dispute. In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 22-23; 934 NW2d
610 (2019) (holding that “the ‘collateral bar’ rule generally prohibits a litigant from indirectly
attacking a prior judgment in a later, separate action,” and, instead, “the litigant must seek relief
by reconsideration of the judgment from the issuing court or by direct appeal”). On appeal,
-2-
plaintiff essentially argues that he has ownership rights to the billboard or related licenses and
permits, and that CBS Outdoors’ claim of ownership to the billboard was fraudulent.
Notwithstanding that CBS is not even a party in the instant litigation, plaintiff’s contentions were
already litigated and rejected by this Court in CBS Outdoors, Inc, unpub op at 3-4, which held that
the subject billboard was CBS’s property, not plaintiffs. Plaintiff sought leave to appeal that
decision in both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States, which
were denied. Aaron v CBS Outdoors, Inc, 498 Mich 908 (2015); Aaron v CBS Outdoors, Inc, 579
US 918; 136 S Ct 2493; 195 L Ed 2d 824 (2016). Even more, this Court declined to consider that
same issue raised by plaintiff in his subsequent suit against another defendant in IB Property
Holdings, unpub op at 3, and the time available to appeal that decision has passed. This Court’s
decisions in CBS Outdoors and IB Property Holdings constituted final rulings on the merits and
were immune from collateral attack. Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527, 530; 711 NW2d 438(2006) (“a decision is final when all appeals have been exhausted or when the time available for
an appeal has passed”).
Additionally, to the extent plaintiff states that the trial court erred by not holding oral
argument on defendant’s motion for summary disposition, there is no requirement that oral
argument be held on motions. See MCR 2.119(E)(3) and Westland v Kodlowski, 298 Mich App
647, 662; 828 NW2d 67 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 495 Mich 871 (2013). To the
extent plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff
has offered nothing from which we could conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying that motion. See Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 233; 611 NW2d 333(2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael F. Gadola
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado
-3-