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

STEPHEN P. EVERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

September 5, 2024

v No. 366610

Lenawee Circuit Court

MEDALLION MANAGEMENT, INC., LC No. 2020-206560-NO

Defendant-Appellee,

and

REBECCA S. HENRICKS and BERNARD D. 

HENRICKS,

Defendants.

Before: GADOLA, C.J., and PATEL and YOUNG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Stephen P. Evers, appeals as of right from a default judgment that was entered in 

favor of plaintiff and against defendants, Rebecca S. Henricks and Bernard D. Henricks, in this 

dog-bite action. On appeal, plaintiff challenges an order granting summary disposition in favor of 

defendant, Medallion Management, Inc., under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We vacate and remand to the 

trial court for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was bit by a dog, Chewy, while he was on Medallion Management’s premises, 

where plaintiff lived at the time. Chewy was owned by the Henrickses, who also lived on the 

premises. Plaintiff had to undergo surgery after the bite-wound became infected.

Plaintiff filed suit against the Henrickses and Medallion Management on multiple grounds. 

The Henrickses failed to answer the complaint. Medallion Management answered the complaint, 

and it generally denied liability. Before the parties engaged in extensive discovery, plaintiff and 

Medallion Management engaged in settlement negotiations. Plaintiff’s counsel moved to 
-2-

withdraw before a settlement was finalized, citing an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client 

relationship. The trial court permitted plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. Two days later, Medallion 

Management served plaintiff with a set of requests for admission. Plaintiff, proceeding in propria 

persona, engaged in further settlement negotiations with Medallion Management. The requests 

for admission were not answered in a timely manner.

After another breakdown in settlement negotiations, Medallion Management moved for 

summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). In relevant part, Medallion Management noted 

plaintiff failed to respond to the requests for admission, request an extension of time to answer, or 

object to the requests. Medallion Management argued the requests for admission were deemed 

admitted by plaintiff’s failure to respond. According to Medallion Management, based on the 

admissions, a genuine issue of material fact did not exist for trial. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff 

retained new counsel, filed late responses to the requests for admission, and opposed Medallion 

Management’s motion for summary disposition. In response to the motion for summary 

disposition, plaintiff argued that the trial court should permit plaintiff’s late answers to the requests 

for admission under the three-factor test in Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683, 692-693; 337 

NW2d 272 (1983). According to plaintiff, counsel for Medallion Management assured plaintiff 

when he was in propria persona that he did not have to respond to written discovery. Plaintiff 

also submitted two affidavits to support genuine issues of material fact existed for trial.

At the motion hearing, plaintiff again requested that the trial court accept the late responses 

to the requests for admission. The trial court took the matter under advisement. The court

ultimately granted summary disposition in favor of Medallion Management on the basis of the

requests for admission, which the trial court held must remain admitted because plaintiff failed to 

move the trial court for leave to file late responses. The trial court later entered a default and 

default judgment against the Henrickses, and this appeal followed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo issues involving the proper interpretation and application of court rules. 

McGregor v Jones, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 361447); slip op 

at 2. A trial court’s decision concerning a motion regarding requests for admission is reviewed for 

an abuse of discretion. Bailey v Schaaf, 293 Mich App 611, 620; 810 NW2d 641 (2011), vacated 

in part on other grounds 494 Mich 595 (2013). “An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial 

court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Tindle v Legend 

Health, PLLC, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 360861); slip op at 2

(cleaned up). “A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Milne 

v Robinson, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 164190); slip op at 4 (cleaned 

up). 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to analyze the merits of his 

argument that he was entitled to file late responses to the requests for admission. We remand the 

matter for further consideration.
-3-

MCR 2.312(A) authorizes a party to “serve on another party a written request for the 

admission of the truth of a matter within the scope of MCR 2.302(B) stated in the request that 

relates to statements or opinions of fact or the application of law to fact. . . .” The purpose of MCR 

2.312 is to “facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be eliminated from the case” and 

“narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be.” Radtke v Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, 

453 Mich 413, 420; 551 NW2d 698 (1996) (cleaned up).

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. [MCR 

2.312(B)(1).]

If an admission is made, that matter “is conclusively established unless the court on motion 

permits withdrawal or amendment of an admission.” MCR 2.312(D)(1). Admissions made or 

deemed as such under MCR 2.312 are “judicial admissions,” which are “conclusive in the case,” 

and not subject to “contradiction or explanation.” Radtke, 453 Mich at 420-421 (cleaned up). 

“[T]he judicial admission, unless allowed by the court to be withdrawn, is conclusive . . . .” Id. 

at 421. 

But MCR 2.312(B)(1) affords a trial court the discretion to provide for a longer or shorter 

period to serve answers. “When a trial judge is asked to decide whether or not to allow a party to 

file late answers to the request for admissions, he is in effect called upon to balance between the 

interests of justice and diligence in litigation.” Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich App 683, 691; 337 

NW2d 272 (1983). The trial judge must balance three factors in making that determination:

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. Obviously, this factor militates 

against granting summary judgment. 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 (cleaned up).]

In this case, the trial court reasoned “the deemed admissions must remain admitted”

because plaintiff never “moved the court for permission” to “file late responses[.]” Plaintiff argues 

this was in error because he complied with MCR 2.119(A), and we agree. At the hearing on 

Medallion Management’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff made an oral motion. 

Plaintiff’s counsel stated: “I request that the Court allow our late answers to [the] request[s] for 

admission so this case may be decided on the merits.” Because the motion was made during a 

hearing, it did not have to be in writing. See MCR 2.119(A)(1) (“Unless made during a hearing 

or trial, a motion must . . . be in writing[.]”).1 The trial court should have considered the merits of 

 

1 Based on this holding, we need not consider whether plaintiff’s request in his response to 

Medallion Management’s motion for summary disposition that the late responses be accepted was 
-4-

plaintiff’s arguments. By holding that it lacked discretion, the trial court abdicated its duty to 

consider the matter, which necessarily resulted in an abuse of discretion. See In re Bibi 

Guardianship, 315 Mich App 323, 335; 890 NW2d 387 (2016) (“a trial court’s failure to exercise 

discretion when required constitutes an abdication and, therefore, an abuse of discretion”) (cleaned 

up).

Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to consider the merits of plaintiff’s 

arguments and apply Janczyk’s three-factor balancing test. See Aguirre v Dep’t of Corrections, 

307 Mich App 315, 326; 859 NW2d 267 (2014); Apex Laboratories Int’l, Inc v City of Detroit (On 

Remand), 331 Mich App 1, 10; 951 NW2d 45 (2020). The trial court should keep in mind that 

disposition of claims on their merits is preferred. Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 

461 Mich 219, 229; 600 NW2d 638 (1999). 

IV. CONCLUSION

We vacate the October 22, 2021 order and remand for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Given this conclusion, we need not consider the 

remainder of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal. See Mich Republican Party v Donahue, ___ Mich 

App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 364048); slip op at 3.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola 

/s/ Sima G. Patel 

/s/ Adrienne N. Young 

 

an adequate written motion under MCR 2.119(A)(1). See Mich Republican Party v Donahue, ___ 

Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 364048); slip op at 3.