Court Opinion

ID: 9380075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 05:05:47.83169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.583063
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                     FOR PUBLICATION
 VELOCITY MRS FUND IV,                                               March 16, 2023

               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 358712
                                                                     Oakland Circuit Court
NEXTGEN PAIN ASSOCIATES &                                            LC No. 2020-181857-CZ
REHABILITATION,

               Defendant,
and

 AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

                 Garnishee Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., SERVITTO and GARRETT, JJ.

       SERVITTO, J. (concurring).

        I agree with the result reached by the majority. I write separately merely to point out that
the staff comment to the 1994 amendment to MCR 3.101 lends further support to the majority

                                                -1-
position. That comment states, “The defendant has 14 days after being served to file objections.”1
“The” is a definite article contemplating a singular noun or subject. See, Robinson v City of
Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 462; 613 NW2d 307 (2000) (“[R]ecognizing that ‘the’ is a definite article,
and ‘cause’ is a singular noun, it is clear that the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ contemplates one
cause.). Thus, the staff comment reinforces the conclusion that only the defendant, rather than a
garnishee defendant is permitted to file an objection to a writ of garnishment.

                                                            /s/ Deborah A. Servitto

1
 While staff comments to the court rules are not binding authority, “they can be persuasive in
understanding the proper scope or interpretation of a rule or its terms.” People v Comer, 500 Mich
278, 298 n 48; 901 NW2d 553 (2017).

                                               -2-