Opinion ID: 1830356
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should the Late Filing of an Affirmative Defense Have Been Allowed?

Text: During proceedings before the trial court, defendant sought dismissal on the basis of the statute and regulation. Plaintiff objected, arguing that they constituted affirmative defenses and that the failure to plead them in the answer to the complaint constituted a waiver. [4] The court allowed the amendment but offered plaintiff additional time to research and respond. Plaintiff rejected the offer, saying it would be useless, because no cases interpreted the provisions. Plaintiff is correct that MCR 2.111(F)(3) provides that affirmative defenses must be stated in a party's responsive pleading, either as originally filed or as amended in accordance with MCR 2.118. However, MCR 2.118(A)(2) states that the court may grant leave to a party to amend a pleading and that, when justice requires it, leave shall be given freely. We find that justice required allowance of the amendment here, because courts have a duty to refuse to enforce a contract that is contrary to public policy. Manning v. Bishop of Marquette, 345 Mich. 130, 133-134, 76 N.W.2d 75 (1956). [5] If the contract violated the statute, it violated Michigan public policy. Moreover, even absent the compelling public policy concern, a motion to amend ordinarily should be granted, unless one of the following particularized reasons exists: [1] undue delay, [2] bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, [3] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [4] undue prejudice [6] to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and 5] futility.... [ Ben P. Fyke & Sons v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649, 656, 213 N.W.2d 134 (1973).] These conditions are not found here, nor does plaintiff claim that they exist. Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that permitted the affirmative defenses to be raised belatedly.