In Ursuy v Yassin, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming he executed a lease with defendants but was evicted pursuant to a judgment entered in an eviction case naming only another tenant “and all other occupants." The defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that the prior eviction judgment barred the present lawsuit. Although the Plaintiff acknowledged that he had been living there, had actual notice of the eviction proceedings, and did not participate, he claimed he was wrongfully evicted because he was not specifically named in the case. The trial court agreed and the Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that the second case was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The gravamen of his complaint was that his possessory interest in the property was interfered with by the Defendants in violation of Michigan’s Anti-Lockout Statute, MCL 600.2918. However, that statute grants a defense if the owner is acting pursuant to a court order. Because the prior case determined who was entitled to possession of the property, because Plaintiff was an occupant of the property with actual knowledge of the proceedings but declined to intervene or participate, and because Plaintiff did not appeal the possession judgment in the earlier proceedings, he was collaterally estopped from proceeding in the second case.