Deidre Goldsmith v. Faith Hope & Love Outreach Center Inc

── Deidre Goldsmith v. Faith Hope & Love Outreach Center Inc ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General 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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEIDRE GOLDSMITH and THERAPEUTICS UNPUBLISHED LLC, May 19, 2026 3:07 PM Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellees, v No. 371415 Wayne Circuit Court FAITH HOPE & LOVE OUTREACH CENTER LC No. 19-012294-CB INC. and DJUANA COATS, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs- Appellants. Before: TREBILCOCK, P.J., and CAMERON and LIEVENSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendants/counterplaintiffs, Faith Hope & Love Outreach Center Inc. (Outreach) and Djuana Coats, appeal as of right the trial court’s judgment awarding $693,653.50, plus statutory interest, to plaintiffs/counterdefendants, Therapeutics LLC (Therapeutics) and Deidre Goldsmith. Defendants also challenge the trial court’s prior order granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact) regarding their claim of identity theft. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from the award of federal grant funds from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Deidre is a certified registered nurse anesthetist who founded Therapeutics, which she owns in partnership with her husband, Dwayne Goldsmith. Therapeutics offers substance abuse and medical assisted treatment (MAT) services to individuals with opioid use disorder. Deidre became interested in applying for a federal grant program offered by SAMHSA, which awarded funds to applicants who sought to increase participation in, and access to, MAT services in diverse populations. Because Therapeutics is a for-profit MAT services provider, it had to partner with a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization to be eligible for the -1- federal grant. Deidre chose to partner with Outreach with the understanding that Therapeutics would provide MAT services to those with opioid use disorder, and Outreach would provide recovery support services. The Goldsmiths provided Coats, the director of Outreach, with the necessary documentation and credentials, and Coats submitted the grant application to SAMHSA.1 Coats identified herself in the grant application as the business official and included her contact information. She named Deidre as the project director, and identified Therapeutics, including its address, in the same section. But Coats used her own e-mail address and telephone number in the section designated for Deidre’s information. Relevant to this appeal, the application also included a budget that provided an annual salary of $120,000 for Dierdre for the grant project’s three-year period. SAMHSA approved the grant application. The award notice approved the budget submitted with the application but requested a revised budget narrative. Deidre, however, did not receive the initial notice of award from SAMHSA, nor did Coats inform her of the grant award or request for a revised budget; in fact, Deirdre only discovered the award after independently searching SAMHSA’s website. Later, the parties’ relationship deteriorated because of disagreements about the scope of the project and how to allocate the funds. After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain the award notice from Coats and reach an agreement regarding the budget, Deidre e-mai