GREENWALD v. GREENWALD, 480 Mich. 1158 (2008)

No. 135299.Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 9, 2008.

Court of Appeals No. 265814.

Summary Dispositions April 9, 2008.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment in part and remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order. In addition to the factual issue identified by the Court of Appeals regarding the wrongful conduct doctrine, an issue of material fact exists regarding whether defendant’s contact with UBS Financial Services, Inc., was justified. This Court has held that “the intentional and knowing inducement of a party to break his contract with another party is a wrongful act, and actionable as such, unless reasonable justification or excuse can be shown.” Bahr v Miller Bros Creamery, 365 Mich 415, 422 (1961) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals erred in holding that defendant’s contact with UBS was per se wrongful. The Court of Appeals defined per se wrongful as “an act that is inherently wrongful or one that is never justified under any circumstances.” Formall v Comm Nat’I Bank, 166 Mich App 772, 780 (1988). This Court has explained that “[n]o categorical answer can be made to the question of what will constitute justification, and it is usually held that this question is one for the jury.” Wilkinson v Powe, 300 Mich 275, 283 (1942), citing cases cited in 84 ALR 43, 81. Justification exists where the defendant acted on an “equal or superior right.” See 84 ALR 43, 80; Feldman v Green, 138 Mich App 360, 378 (1984); see als Wilkinson, supra at 283 (using “superior or absolute” right). A question of material fact exists regarding whether defendant was justified in contacting UBS and informing it of plaintiff’s alleged fraudulent conduct to protect her own legal interests and/or to avoid or remedy harm to UBS. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that defendant’s conduct was per se wrongful and remand this matter to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order and with the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Page 1159