Listen to this article
Where a defendant has moved for reconsideration, his motion should be denied because he has failed to demonstrate palpable error in need of correction.
“These consolidated cases involve a failed marijuana grow venture developed on a parcel of property commonly described as 15403 Sharon Road owned by Elite Excavation (Elite) which is owned by Beau Parmenter. Parmenter is also part owner of the now-defunct grower, Chesaning Products Corporation (CPC). Near the end of CPC’s development stage, Parmenter was instrumental in securing $400,000 of additional funding from Jordan Dice. When the operation quickly imploded, litigation ensued, including claims by Dice against Parmenter to recover his investment.
“The cases eventually proceeded to trial by jury. Mid-trial, on February 6, 2025, the parties and their attorneys placed a settlement agreement on the record in open court. …
“… As before, Parmenter’s current motion cites no legal authority for his proposition that, absent an agreement to the contrary, a consensual lien is discharged upon death of the lienholder.
“Without more, Parmenter’s motion is a nonstarter. … Effectively, the issue is considered abandoned. … In any event, Parmenter has failed to demonstrate palpable error. …
“Here, Parmenter agreed that Dice is to have a $300,000 lien that continues until satisfied from proceeds of sale of the Sharon Road property. Nothing was said about the obligation being extinguished if Dice did not survive Elite (which presumably enjoys perpetual existence). In short, Parmenter agreed that the duration of the lien is to be measured by the date of sale of the security, not Dice’s death. And absent Dice’s consent, Parmenter cannot change the agreement now.
“Similarly, although not raised in Parmenter’s present reconsideration motion, the court takes the opportunity to confirm its prior ruling that, by omission, the parties’ settlement similarly does not restrict Dice’s ability to transfer or assign his lien.
“Under Michigan law, there is a recognized right to assign choses in action and other property rights. Gardner v LeFevre, 180 Mich 219, 221; 146 NW 653 (1914). ‘Under general contract law, rights can be assigned unless the assignment is clearly restricted.’ Burkhardt v Bailey, 260 Mich App 636, 653; 680 NW2d 453 (2004). Here, Parmenter agreed on the record to grant Dice a lien on the Sharon Road property without mention of any restriction. Absent Dice’s permission, he can’t add one now.
“In conclusion, Parmenter’s motion merely presents the same issues previously ruled on by the court and, in the absence of applicable legal authority or persuasive argument, has failed to demonstrate palpable error in need of correction.
“Accordingly, Parmenter’s motion for reconsideration is denied.”
