If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GEORGE JAPPAYA, UNPUBLISHED July 8, 2021 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee/Crossappellant, v No. 349247 Oakland Circuit Court F.G.Y., INC., a/k/a FGY INC., JOE KARMO, LC No. 2016-155024-CB NIDHAL KARMO, YOUSIF KALASHO, and LUMIA KALASHO, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/Third- Party Defendants- Appellants/Crossappellees, and CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs-Third- Party Plaintiffs, and SHAWN JAPPAYA, JAPPAYA LAW, PLC, and JAMAL ALNAKSHABANDI, Third-Party Defendants.. GEORGE JAPPAYA, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, v No. 349610 Oakland Circuit Court -1- F.G.Y., INC., a/k/a FGY INC, JOE KARMO, LC No. 2016-155024-CB NIDHAL KARMO, and YOUSIF KALASHO, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/Third- Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, and CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/Third- Party Plaintiffs, and SHAWN JAPPAYA, JAPPAYA LAW, PLC, and JAMAL ALNAKSHABANDI, Third-Party Defendants. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and SHAPIRO and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM. In Docket No. 349247, defendants1 F.G.Y., Inc a/k/a FGY Inc (FGY), Joe Karmo (Joe), Nidhal Karmo, Yousif Kalasho (Yousif), and Lumia Kalasho appeal as of right the trial court opinion and order dismissing defendants’ counterclaims following a bench trial, as well as the opinion and orders granting plaintiff George Jappaya’s (plaintiff) motion for summary disposition and denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. Plaintiff also filed a crossappeal challenging the trial court’s reduction of his request for attorney fees and the calculation of statutory interest. Although the trial court rendered dispositional rulings, at the time defendants filed their claim of appeal in Docket No. 349247, a final judgment had not entered. Accordingly, in Docket No. 349610, defendants appeal as of right the trial court judgment awarding plaintiff $1,168,960 against FGY, $313,085.94 plus $28,085.94 in interest against Joe, and $313,085.94 plus $28,085.94 against Yousif as well as $64,796 in attorney fees against FGY, Joe, and Yousif, jointly 1 Although the judgment arises from the trial court’s decision regarding the countercomplaint, we will refer to defendants/counterplaintiffs/third-party defendants as “defendants” and plaintiff/counterdefendant as “plaintiff” for ease of reference. Additionally, although Joe Karmo’s wife, Nidhal Karmo, and Yousif Kalasho’s wife, Lumia Kalasho, are named as defendants, the term “defendants” simply refers to Joe and Yousif because the wives were only involved to the extent they also pledged collateral for the Comerica notes. -2- and severally. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, but remand for the ministerial task of correcting the amount of the attorney fee award to comport with the trial court’s ruling and to calculate interest from the correct date of filing the complaint.2 I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case arises out of a business dispute between family members. Plaintiff formed the corporate entity FGY with Fouad Karmo (Fouad) and Joe Karmo (Joe). The men were brothers- in-law because they married sisters. However, Yousif Kalasho (Yousif) learned of the opportunity through his wife, another relative, and also joined FGY. Each of the four men invested $200,000 for the purchase of a hotel in Niles, Michigan known as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals