United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RENEW JUDGMENT
L. LUDINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
December 8, 2006, Plaintiff Cadleway Properties, Inc., filed
a complaint naming Cecil Fielder and C.J. USA, Inc., as
Defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that it leased certain
equipment to Defendants, but that Defendants failed to comply
with the terms of the lease, including by failing to timely
pay monthly installments. On March 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed
a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 26. On May 5, 2008,
Plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Cadlerock Joint
Venture II, LP as the Plaintiff, explaining that Cadleway
Properties had assigned its interest to Cadlerock. ECF No 27.
On May 29, 2008, the motion for substitution and the motion
for summary judgment were granted. ECF No. 29, 30. Judgment
was entered the same day in the amount of $245, 672.29,
“in addition to prejudgment interest as allowed by
law.” ECF No. 31.
November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to renew the
judgment. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff explained that “[a]s of
the date of this Motion, there is now due and owing to
Plaintiff the amount of $290, 564.03, plus interest in the
amount of $136, 887.99, costs in the amount of 0.00, less
payments in the amount of $42, 250.00 for a total Judgment
balance of $385, 202.02.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff
further explained that, under Michigan law, the period of
limitations for an action founded upon a judgment or decree
rendered in a court is ten years. M.C.L. 600.5809(3). Section
600.5809(3) further provides that “[w]ithin the
applicable period of limitations prescribed by this
subsection, an action may be brought upon the judgment or
decree or a new judgment or decree.”
November 13, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit
supplemental briefing on two points. First, the Court
identified a “disparity between the principal amount
identified in the original judgment, and the principal amount
Plaintiff now identifies.” Nov. 13, 2017, Op. &
Order at 2. Second, Plaintiff had not identified the means by
which it calculated the post-judgment interest it was
has now filed its supplemental brief. For the following
reasons, Plaintiff's motion to renew the judgment will be
granted. Under Michigan law, an ex parte motion to modify or
renew the judgment is procedurally sufficient. Van Reken
v. Darden, Neef & Heitsch, 259 Mich.App. 454, 458,
674 N.W.2d 731, 734 (2003); In re Fifarek, 370 B.R.
754, 761 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2007). Further, there is no
requirement that the debtor be notified or given an
opportunity to contest the motion prior to the renewal.
In re Fifarek, 370 B.R. at 762. To the extent that
Defendants might contest the extension, they may file a
motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) after the renewed judgment is issued.
Plaintiff indicates that it miscalculated the total amount of
the judgment, which is $292, 237.28, not $290.564.03. That is
the same amount that the Court arrived at via its independent
calculations, detailed in the November 13, 2017, opinion and
order. Second, Plaintiff explains that it miscalculated the
post-judgment interest due in its original motion to renew
the judgment. Originally, Plaintiff used a 5% interest rate,
based on the belief that the lease agreement in question
provided for that rate. In the November 13, 2017, opinion and
order, the Court opined that the “lease agreement does
not appear to expressly contemplate post-judgment interest,
” and Plaintiff now agrees. Nov. 13, 2017, Op. &
Order at 3. Because the lease agreement is silent on
post-judgment interest, M.C.L. 600.6013(8) applies. That
section provides that “interest on a money judgment
recovered in a civil action is calculated at 6-month
intervals from the date of filing the complaint at a rate of
interest equal to 1% plus the average interest rate paid at
auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6
months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as
certified by the state treasurer, and compounded annually,
according to this section.” Id.
has attached its updated calculations for post-judgment
interest. See Updated Interest Calc., ECF No. 45,
Ex. A. In compliance with M.C.L. 600.6013(8), those
calculations identify the applicable interest rates for the
period in question. In total, Plaintiff seeks $81, 604.16 in
post-judgment interest. To summarize, Plaintiff (correctly)
identifies the original judgment amount as $292, 237.28.
Plaintiff further seeks entry of post-judgment interest in
the amount of $81, 604.16. When those two sums are added
together and the payments received by Plaintiff to date
($44.500.00) are subtracted, the total comes to $329, 341.44.
Renewed judgment will be entered in that amount.
it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to
renew judgment, ECF No. 43, is GRANTED.
further ORDERED that, in accordance with
M.C.L. 600.5809, renewed judgment is ENTERED
for Plaintiff Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP and against
Defendants Cecil Fielder and C.J. USA, Inc., in the amount of
 The case was assigned to Judge Gadola.
After Judge Gadola's retirement, his cases were assigned
to Judge Ludington because Judge Ludington filled the seat
vacated by Judge Gadola. In technical terms, Judge ...