In Davis v Boydell Development Co., an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the plaintiffs were tenants and former tenants in defendants’ residential buildings located in the city of Detroit. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by fraudulently renting the properties without first obtaining a certificate of compliance as required by Detroit city ordinances. Defendants moved for summary disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action because the MCPA does not apply to a "transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” MCL 445.904(1)(1). The trial court agreed, granting the motion and denying Plaintiff’s oral motion to amend their complaint; and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
Because the transaction of renting residential property in the city of Detroit is specifically authorized by city Ordinances and Michigan law, the exception applies and the plaintiffs’ claims under the MCPA failed to state a claim.
Regarding the denial of leave to amend the complaint, the court of appeals noted that Plaintiffs never filed a written motion as required by MCR 2.118(A)(4) and never presented to the court a proposed amended complaint for the court to consider whether the amendment was justified.
The exception contained in the MCPA severely limits its applicability; if the transaction is regulated, the MCPA does not apply. Although several cases have so held, the Michigan Legislature has not amended the MCPA, leaving it unavailing when a transaction is regulated.
This case also highlights the need to file both a written motion to amend one’s pleadings when faced with a summary disposition motion, and to attach a proposed amended pleading to the motion.