If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

BEE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

January 19, 2023

v No. 360073

Oakland Circuit Court

UNITED MOTORS, LLC, LC No. 2020-182205-CB

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant defaulted on a loan it received from plaintiff, and plaintiff sued for breach of 

contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requested admissions during the litigation, and defendant 

did not respond in a timely manner. Those admissions were deemed admitted and the trial court 

granted plaintiff summary disposition on the breach of contract claim. Defendant now appeals. 

We affirm.

Plaintiff served defendant with an amended request for admission on April 16, 2021. MCR 

2.312(B)(1) requires that responses to requests for admission must be made and served on the party

within 28 days after the request was served, or the admissions will be admitted. Accordingly, 

defendant had until May 14, 2021, to serve its answers. Defendant did not serve any answers by 

the deadline, and plaintiff moved to admit those admissions. In relevant part, those admissions 

included that defendant had signed the promissory note through an agent authorized to do business 

on behalf of defendant, defendant had not made a single payment under the schedule of the 

promissory note, and defendant owed plaintiff $115,000 plus interest and late fees.

Plaintiff also moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted plaintiff summary 

disposition on its claim for breach of contract because there was no genuine issue of material fact 

that defendant breached the contract when considering the admissions made under MCR 

2.312(B)(1) and conclusively established under MCR 2.312(D)(1). The trial court declined to 

apply the factors in Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683, 691-692; 337 NW2d 272 (1983) 

concerning a party’s ability to file a motion to untimely answer a request for admissions because, 

the trial court held, those factors required defendant to submit a motion.
-2-

“We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary 

disposition.” Sherman v City of St Joseph, 332 Mich App 626, 632; 957 NW2d 838 (2020) 

(citations omitted). This Court reviews a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) “by 

considering the pleadings, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Patrick v Turkelson, 322 Mich App 595, 605; 913 NW2d 

369 (2018). “Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sherman, 332 Mich 

App at 632. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision whether to allow a party to amend its 

admissions under MCR 2.312(D)(1) for an abuse of discretion. Medbury v Walsh, 190 Mich App 

554, 556; 476 NW2d 470 (1991).

The trial court held that the admissions were properly deemed admitted under MCR 2.312, 

which states in relevant part:

(B) Answer; Objection

(1) Each matter as to which a request is made is deemed admitted unless, 

within 28 days after service of the request, or within a shorter or longer time 

as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves on 

the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed 

to the matter. Unless the court orders a shorter time a defendant may serve 

an answer or objection within 42 days after being served with the summons 

and complaint.

* * *

(D) Effect of Admission

(1) A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the 

court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of an admission. For 

good cause the court may allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission. 

The court may condition amendment or withdrawal of the admission on 

terms that are just.

Defendant admits that its answers to plaintiff’s requests for admissions were late, and the 

record does not contain any motion from defendant to request additional time to answer plaintiff’s 

request or to amend or withdraw the admissions already admitted. Accordingly, those admissions 

were properly deemed admitted under MCR 2.312(B)(1) and conclusively established under MCR 

2.312(D)(1).

Instead, defendant argues that the trial court erred by using the admissions as the basis for 

the summary disposition because defendant should have been allowed to amend or withdraw the 

admissions under Janczyk, even though defendant made no motion to amend or withdraw. 

Janczyk concerned “the standards by which a trial court should decide a party’s motion to 

file late answers.” Bailey v Schaaf, 293 Mich App 611, 622; 810 NW2d 641 (2011) (cleaned up). 

In Janczyk, a panel of this Court held that even though the admissions should have been admitted, 

the defendant’s failure to answer did not mean that the trial court was bound to grant summary 
-3-

disposition automatically because the trial court had the discretion to allow the defendant to file a 

late answer. Janczyk, 125 Mich App at 691. The matter was then remanded to the trial court to 

determine if the defendant should be allowed to file a late answer after considering three factors: 

First, whether or not allowing the party to answer late “will aid in the presentation 

of the action.” In other words, the trial judge should consider whether or not 

refusing the request will eliminate the trial on the merits... Second, the trial court 

should consider whether or not the other party would be prejudiced if it allowed a 

late answer. Third, the trial court should consider the reason for the delay: whether 

or not the delay was inadvertent. [Id. at 692-693.]

Defendant’s argument is misplaced. The clear language of MCR 2.312(D)(1) states that 

admissions that are admitted under this rule are “conclusively established unless the court on 

motion permits withdrawal or amendment of an admission.” (Emphasis added.) There was no 

motion upon which the trial court could apply the Janczyk factors, and the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion when it held that Janczyk was inapplicable for this reason.

Further, when considering the admissions, there was no genuine issue of material fact that

defendant had a contract to repay a loan to plaintiff, defendant breached that contract because it 

did not make any payments on the promissory note’s schedule, and plaintiff sustained damages in 

the amount of $115,000 plus interest and late fees. 

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra 

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle