COA reverses eviction after mobile home fire

Listen to this article

An eviction that followed a fire in a mobile home was reversed by a Michigan Court of Appeals panel.

In Cedar Springs Mobile Estates v. Smith (MiLW No. 08-101141, 9 pages), defendant tenant Angela Smith was evicted and ordered to pay nearly $7,000 following a bench trial in district court. The Kent County Circuit Court affirmed, but the appeals court panel reversed in stating that Cedar Springs’ only evidence of negligence was speculative and rebutted by Smith.

“The district court could not find Smith financially responsible and therefore could not support a judgment of eviction,” the panel stated.

The unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Brock A. Swartzle, Elizabeth L. Gleicher and Michael J. Kelly.

The case

Smith rented a mobile home and a lot at Cedar Springs. On July 22, 2017, a couch in the living room caught fire, damaging the surrounding area. Cedar Springs paid to repair the fire damage and then attempted to recoup about $5,000 from Smith, the COA opinion stated.

When Smith did not pay that amount in addition to her normal rent payments, Cedar Springs instituted eviction proceedings in the district court and sought damages. The district court ordered Smith’s eviction and entered a judgment of $6,997.10. Smith appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed.

The home was uninhabitable after the fire and repairs began. The defendant and her family were able to move back into the home on Oct. 13, 2017. She made payments but a balance remained, prompting Cedar Springs to file a “demand for possession” in district court.

The court would not permit Cedar Springs manager Ranee Dewey to give an opinion about the origin of the fire as she was not an expert, but she was permitted to testify regarding “what she observed.” Dewey stated that the fire started in the living room, at the window, where there was an afghan placed over the air conditioner.

Smith testified that she and her husband heard the smoke detector and found “the back of our couch was glowing on the wall.” They were unsuccessful in putting out the fire with water or a fire extinguisher.

“They attempted to push the burning couch out the front door, but it became lodged. Smith and her family ultimately fled the mobile home through the back door. Smith denied that anyone placed an afghan on the air conditioner before the fire. The afghan had been on the couch, Smith insisted,” the opinion stated.

“If the fire incident report described an afghan draped on an air conditioner as the fire’s point of origin, Smith asserted that this would be inaccurate.”

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was “in the exclusive possession and control of the trailer. . . . They did something or didn’t do something that caused the fire.” The defense countered with a theory that there was an electrical fire and that Cedar Springs violated its duty to keep the premises habitable and fit for its intended use.

The district court concluded that “without a finding of negligence or intentionally setting the fire, that the fire was caused by the Defendant’s own acts or omissions and that the Plaintiff should not have to bear the cost of the Defendant’s own acts or omissions.”

The circuit court affirmed, finding that the district court did not clearly err in finding Smith liable based on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

COA analysis

Smith challenged the lower courts’ reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to find her negligent.

“First, she contends that the mere occurrence of a fire does not necessarily mean that negligence occurred. Second, Smith notes that Cedar Springs had greater access to the fire scene than her and therefore could have investigated and discovered the source of the fire. Third, Smith argues that the doctrine does not apply in breach of contract actions,” the opinion stated.

The panel stated that reliance on circumstantial evidence or res ipsa loquitur does not remove the plaintiff’s burden of producing evidence and proving its case.

“Testimony in this case established that a burnt afghan was found draped on the window air conditioner after the fire,” the opinion stated. “There is no record indication that the air conditioning unit underneath the blanket showed any signs of malfunction. No evidence was presented that the afghan was placed on the air conditioner before the fire; Dewey merely speculated that it was. And Smith testified that the afghan actually caught fire while on the couch, not on the air conditioner.”

The fire could have been caused by defective electrical wiring, an electrical surge, or a weather-related event, the panel stated, adding that the plaintiff could have relied on the testimony of the fire official who prepared the fire incident report or the electrician hired to conduct repairs.

“Instead, it relied on the speculations of a lay person who was not present during the event. It would be poor precedent to allow a plaintiff to use res ipsa loquitur to make an end run around the rules of evidence in this manner,” the opinion stated.

The panel added that the plaintiff had “greater access to the mobile home between July 22 and October 13 and ‘the true explanation of the’ fire was ‘more readily accessible’ to it than Smith.”

“Absent sufficient evidence to support Smith’s negligence in causing the fire, the district court erred in finding Smith liable for the repair costs and using the nonpayment to support eviction, and the circuit court erred in affirming that judgment,” the panel concluded.

If you would like to comment on this story, email Lee Dryden at [email protected].