Case Name: WASHBURN v. LAKE DIANE, INC.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-06-24
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 704
Docket Number: Docket No. 6,260
Parties: WASHBURN v. LAKE DIANE, INC.
Judges: BEFORE ': Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Dan-HOE> JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 704–706

Head Matter:
WASHBURN v. LAKE DIANE, INC.
Discovery — Pretrial Order — Failure to Comply — Remedy—Default Judgment.
Pretrial order requiring defendant property developer to furnish plaintiff property owner with ledger sheets as to each of plaintiffs’ lots that he had sold, indieating selling price, nature of sale, and amounts paid up to the time a receiver was appointed was proper because it was essential to the accounting requested by plaintiffs and defendants; therefore a default judgment against defendants was proper after they failed to comply with an order to produce the information (OCR 1963, 310.1[1], 313.2[2] [e]).
References for Points in Headnote
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 260.
Constitutionality, construction, and application of statutes or rules ''of court which permit setting aside a plea and giving judgment by default, or dismissing suit, because of disobedience of order, summons, or subpoena duees tecum requiring production of documents. 144 ALR 372.
Opening default or default judgment claimed to have been obtained because of attorney’s mistake as to time or place of appearance, trial, or filing of necessary papers. 21 ABR34 1255,
Appeal from Hillsdale, Robert W. McIntyre, J. Submitted Division 2 June 5, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 6,260.)
Decided June 24, 1969.
Complaint by Thomas W. Washburn and Helen Washburn against Lake Diane, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and Floren Klopfenstein to avoid a contract under which defendants were to develop certain property owned by plaintiffs, for appointment of a receiver, for an accounting, and for other relief. Default judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Dimmers <& Moes (Lewis I. Loren, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Clay T. Brockman, for defendants.
BEFORE ': Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Dan-HOE> JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This action arises out of a contract by which defendants were to develop and sell property owned by plaintiffs. By their action, plaintiffs sought to have the contract declared null and void, appointment of a receiver, and an accounting as to lots sold by defendants. By their answer, defendants admitted all of the allegations contained in plaintiffs' complaint, except the allegation of fraud, and defendants prayed for certain relief, including appointment of a receiver, to protect their interests and liabilities arising out of the contract. A receiver was appointed and he qualified to act.
The pretrial summary required defendants to furnish the receiver with ledger sheets as to each lot sold indicating selling price, nature of sale and amounts paid on sales up to the time receiver was appointed. This information was to be furnished to the receiver within 30 days of receipt of the pretrial summary, which also provided for default judgment on motion of plaintiffs if defendants failed to furnish the information as ordered.
Defendants failed to furnish the information as ordered. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment was granted and such a judgment entered. On appeal, defendants contend the default was improperly entered.
The information defendants were ordered to produce was not only essential to the accounting requested by plaintiffs and defendants, but discovery of such information is authorized by GCR 1963, 310.1(1). Refusal to make discovery authorizes default judgment, GCR 1963, 313.2(2) (e), and defendants were forewarned of this eventuality in the pretrial summary. The protection defendants seek for their interests and liabilities on the issue of damages arising under the contract is available under GCR 1963, 520.2(2).
Affirmed with costs to plaintiffs.