COA 376543 ISAAC ROBERT TURNER V CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 9/10/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
ISAAC ROBERT TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
September 10, 2026
11:18 AM
v No. 376543
Wayne Circuit Court
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, LC No. 25-001244-CZ
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: BAZZI, P.J., and PATEL and ACKERMAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellee Carrington Mortgage Services had a mortgage interest in property
formerly owned by plaintiff-appellant Isaac Turner. It foreclosed on that mortgage; this is
plaintiff’s second attempt to undo the foreclosure. His first attempt was unsuccessful, and in this
second attempt, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendant on res judicata grounds.
But because the first action is not yet over, the order on which defendant and the trial court relied
here was only an interlocutory order without preclusive effect. That said, precisely because the
first proceeding is not yet over, summary disposition was appropriate, but for that reason—another
pending action involving this same dispute exists between these parties. As a result, we affirm the
trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition. Because we do so on alternative grounds, we
vacate the trial court’s finding that this action was frivolous and remand for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this opinion, if necessary.
I. FACTS
In June 2021, plaintiff borrowed $218,960 from United Wholesale Mortgage and used it to
purchase a parcel of property in Livonia. Plaintiff granted a mortgage to UWM that same day.
Since then, both the mortgage and the debt have been transferred by UWM to defendant, although
plaintiff challenges the validity of that transfer. In 2023, plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and on
November 2, 2023, a sheriff’s sale was conducted at which defendant placed the winning bid.
A week later, plaintiff filed a civil action in Wayne Circuit Court against defendant, as well
as a law firm that represents defendant (Randall S. Miller & Associates) and UWM. The complaint
was not a model of clarity, and the exact nature of the claims it asserted against the defendants is

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
therefore not entirely certain. For example, it titled itself a “Bill in Equity for a Full Accounting;
Restore Right of Redemption to Settle Accounts on Private Property.” Shortly thereafter,
defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that plaintiff
had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In February 2024, the trial court
granted that motion as to defendant and the Miller law firm. Under MCR 2.602(A)(3), that order
purported to be a final order that closed the case. However, when plaintiff claimed an appeal from
it in this Court, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that—notwithstanding its
self-designation as a final order—“it does not dispose of the claim against defendant United
Wholesale Mortgage.” Turner v Carrington Mtg Servs, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered March 15, 2024 (Docket No. 369880). Our order noted that plaintiff could
proceed by application, which he attempted to do, although his application was denied for failure
to persuade this Court of the need for immediate appellate review. Turner v Carrington Mtg Servs,
LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 26, 2024 (Docket
No. 371838).
Plaintiff responded in January 2025 by filing this parallel civil action in Wayne Circuit
Court—this time only against defendant. In it, he alleged that defendant had made various
“[f]raudulent [m]isrepresentations,” such as that “[d]efendant has never been in possession of the
Original note properly endorsed giving them rights to enforce.” He also asserted that he “was
automatically enrolled in online billing and there was no way to opt out of online billing at the
time on defendants [sic] website,” so he “withheld further payments.” He asked for “a permanent
injunction preventing Defendant from enforcing any claims against the Property” and for the court
to “set aside . . . the foreclosure sale.” Plaintiff also asked the trial court to “consolidate” this case
with the earlier 2023 action.
Defendant responded with a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7),
invoking both res judicata and collateral estoppel. It argued that the February 2024 order granting
it summary disposition was a final order that was a dismissal on the merits as to defendant. Once
again, the trial court agreed, concluding in June 2025 that under these doctrines, plaintiff could not
maintain this action. The court also found that this action was frivolous under MCL 600.2591.
This appeal followed.1
II. ANALYSIS
We review a summary disposition ruling de novo. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118;
597 NW2d 817 (1999). Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7),
1 After the trial court granted summary disposition in this matter, plaintiff appears to have taken
the complaint he filed in this matter and attempted to present it to the trial court in the 2023 case,
which the trial court treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied. Plaintiff filed an
application for leave to appeal from that order as well, which this Court denied for lack of
jurisdiction (to the extent that it challenged the February 2024 order, which was by then more than
six months old, see MCR 7.205(A)(4)(a)) and for failure to persuade of the need for immediate
appellate review (to the extent that it challenged the order denying reconsideration). Turner v
Carrington Mtg Servs, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 23,
2025 (Docket No. 376547).

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
under which one basis for relief is a “prior judgment.” That is the means by which res judicata
and collateral estoppel arguments are raised, which we also review de novo. Pierson Sand &
Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 379; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); Barrow v Pritchard,
235 Mich App 478, 480; 597 NW2d 853 (1999).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition because the
February 2024 order was not a final order with preclusive effect. We agree. As an initial matter,
that is an entirely reasonable conclusion for him to draw in light of our earlier dismissal of his
claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction for that very reason—at least at that time, the 2023 litigation
was not yet over. Our review of Wayne Circuit Court’s online docketing system confirms that
conclusion: the 2023 case is still underway, and plaintiff’s claims against UWM are still
unresolved. As a result, and more importantly than our earlier jurisdictional ruling, that means the
trial court’s February 2024 order is necessarily not a final order.
[A]n order or other form of decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims, or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, does not terminate the action as to
any of the claims or parties, and the order is subject to revision before entry of final
judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
[MCR 2.604(A).]
When a trial court grants summary disposition to some but not all of the parties, those parties
become “inactive parties in the lawsuit.” Yudashkin v Linzmeyer, 247 Mich App 642, 650; 637
NW2d 257 (2001). “[U]nder the plain language of MCR 2.604(A), [a] trial court’s grant of
summary disposition [is] not a final judgment and d[oes] not terminate the action.” Id. The trial
court erred in granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) because there is no “prior
judgment” eligible for preclusive effect.
But the very reason the February 2024 order does not have the effect defendant and the
trial court attributed to it also provides a basis for affirming the trial court’s decision on alternative
grounds. Here, relief should have been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(6), because “[a]nother action
has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim.” That is precisely the
situation here, and “we will not reverse when the court reaches the correct result but for the wrong
reason.” Zimmerman v Owens, 221 Mich App 259, 264; 561 NW2d 475 (1997). The trial court
was correct in granting summary disposition, but it did so for the wrong reason.2 To the extent
that plaintiff wants to raise those claims against defendant, he must do so in the 2023 case—an
attempt which it appears he has already made. To the extent that the trial court erred in refusing
his request to file an amended complaint or otherwise present those claims in the 2023 action,
plaintiff may, once the trial court enters a final judgment in that matter, file a claim of appeal in
this Court and obtain appellate review as of right of the trial court’s handling of his claims.
That said, the trial court’s finding under MCL 600.2591 that plaintiff’s complaint was
frivolous was informed by its conclusion that “[p]laintiff’s prior complaints involved the same
2 Because we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on alternative grounds, we need
not reach plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred in not consolidating this case with the 2023
case. The trial court properly dismissed this case, so there is no consolidation to perform.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
issues and were dismissed with prejudice.” That is incorrect—under MCR 2.604(A), the trial
court’s prior orders regarding defendant were necessarily not final. As a result, we vacate the trial
court’s finding under MCL 600.2591 that this was a frivolous action.
The trial court’s order granting summary disposition is affirmed, albeit on the alternative
basis that summary disposition should have been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(6). Its finding
under MCL 600.2591 is vacated. We remand this matter to the trial court where, if necessary, it
may conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion should defendant renew its
request for frivolous action sanctions under MCL 600.2591.
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi
/s/ Sima G. Patel
/s/ Matthew S. Ackerman

-- 4 of 4 --