Opinion
SC 166836 COA: 364900
11-01-2024
MURPHY-TELEGRAPH BUILDING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT THERMAL, LLC,Defendant-Appellee.
Wayne CC: 22-008171-NZ
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Clement, C.J. (concurring).
I write separately to underscore the well-established rule that a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must satisfy both prongs of the conjunctive test outlined in MCR 2.603(D)(1): the party must both demonstrate good cause for failing to respond to the complaint and file an affidavit showing a meritorious defense. These are distinct requirements, and failure to meet either prong is fatal to motions to set aside properly entered defaults and default judgments. The conjunctive nature of this test must not be blurred.
In this case, while defendant attempted to satisfy both prongs, the trial court and Court of Appeals found that good cause was not shown. However, the Court of Appeals majority allowed the meritorious defense to compensate for the lack of good cause. It is essential to reaffirm that these requirements are distinct and cannot be blended. Although the decision in Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich. 219 (1999), has been interpreted to create a lower good-cause standard when a meritorious defense would be absolute if proven, Alken-Ziegler still requires that both a meritorious defense and good cause be demonstrated by the defendant.
I also note that the Court of Appeals majority relied on evidence beyond the two affidavits attached to defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment. While this approach may have been intended to ensure a thorough review, it raises concerns under MCR 2.603(D)(1), which places the responsibility on the defendant to present sufficient proof of a meritorious defense within its motion. Courts should exercise caution in addressing any gaps in a party's submissions, as highlighted in Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich. 377, 388 (2008), which reminds us that "[t]rial courts are not the research assistants of the litigants; the parties have a duty to fully present their legal arguments to the court for its resolution of their dispute."
For these reasons, while I ultimately agree with this Court's order denying leave, I am concerned that the Court of Appeals opinion below erodes the integrity of the conjunctive standard for setting aside properly entered defaults and default judgments.