Court Opinion

ID: 9719617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:57:15.110685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.456698
License: Public Domain

McDonald, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissent*421ing in part). I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition where the evidence submitted established the presence of a genuine issue of fact regarding whether plaintiff George Morris Cruises was carrying on business in Michigan and therefore was required to file a certificate of co-. partnership. I further agree summary disposition was properly granted with respect to the individual claims of the partners for the reasons stated.
However, I disagree with the majority’s holding that plaintiff’s actual filing of a certificate of co-partnership before dismissal of the lawsuit cured any defect in standing.
MCL 449.106; MSA 20.118 clearly prohibits a party from bringing suit "until after full compliance” with the statute. Plaintiff was required to file its certificate of copartnership before this action was filed. The trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of compliance with this provision was proper.
There is a rational basis for the Legislature to require that a partnership file a certificate to indicate its existence. The statutory schemes, filing requirements and methods of taxation of partnerships are different from those of corporations. Another important distinction is that corporations are required to file annual reports and partnerships are not. Thus, it is more difficult for the public to obtain information about a partnership, making it a more likely vehicle for fraud.
I would remand to the trial court for resolution of the factual dispute regarding whether plaintiff is subject to the requirements of the partnership act. If found subject to its provisions, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.