Court Opinion

ID: 9687468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:29:06.715315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:29.255590
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). Although entitled “motion for summary judgment”, GCR 1963, 117 incorporates not only the former summary judgment court rule1 but also the court rule pertaining to motions to dismiss.2
A motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact is now covered in subdivision (3) of Rule 117.2 (GCR 1963, 117.2(3)). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or valid defense are now covered in subdivisions (1) and (2), respectively, of that rule (GCR 1963, 117.2[1] [2]). So that the respondent to such a motion and the court can know whether it is based on one ground or another, the rule provides that the motion “shall state” which of the grounds is relied on.3 In my opinion the ground stated in plaintiff’s motion is that expressed in GCR 1963, 117.2(2) — failure to state a valid defense; and not (3)- — absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment states that plaintiff moves for a summary judgment “for the reason that the defendants’ answer fails to state *626a valid defense, and the defendants have not denied any of the material matters alleged in the complaint, but only such immaterial matters not pertinent to the issues and not constituting a defense to the plaintiff’s claim.” (Emphasis added.)
The matter is of importance in this case because the trial judge and this Court have decided against the defendant because defendant failed to present affidavits establishing that there is a genuine issue of fact. But no such affidavit is required or permitted where the motion is based on an alleged failure to state a valid defense.
“As under our former dismissal practice for failure of the plaintiff to state a cause of action, motions for summary judgment under Rule 117.2(1), based upon the ground that the opposing party has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, need no affidavit in support, for the simple reason that the ground for the relief requested must, if at all, appear on the face of the pleading so attacked. The same is true of a motion for summary judgment under Rule 117.2(2), based upon the ground that the opposing party has failed to state a valid defense to the claim asserted against him. In neither of such motions is nonpleaded fact, offered by affidavit or otherwise, pertinent to the issue (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or failure to state a valid defense) presented by such motion.” From concurring opinion of Justice Souris in Durant v. Stahlin (Appeal in re Van Dusen, Elliott, Romney) (1965), 375 Mich 628, 643, 644.
In my opinion the trial judge was not justified in partially granting the motion for summary judgment on the ground that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that under the undisputed facts, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter *627of law.” (Quoted words from the judgment entered by the trial' judge.)
I would, therefore, reverse although there are other hurdles defendant may not have fully negotiated. Assuming the defense of failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense,4 we have noted that it may not have been properly pleaded.5 Nevertheless, I would not vote to affirm on that ground because it has not been suggested any such deficiency was argued to the trial judge, and to affirm on such ground under that circumstance would be to deprive the defendant of an opportunity to seek leave from the trial judge to file an amended answer, which “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” GrCR 1963, 118.
For the reason expressed in Fox v. Roethlisberger (1957), 350 Mich 1, 3, I would not attempt, on the record before us, to decide the validity of the defense.

 See Court Rule No 30(1945), for the prior rule.

 See Court Rule No 17, § 7(1945), for the prior rule.

 “.2 Grounds. The motion for summary judgment shall state that the moving party is entitled to judgment in his favor because of any 1 of the following grounds:
(1) the opposing party has failed to state a elaim upon whieh relief can be granted,
(2) the opposing party has failed to state a valid defense to the claim asserted against him,
(3) . that exeept as to the amount of damages there is no genuine issue as to any material faet, and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” GCR 1963, 117.2. (Emphasis added.)

 See 22 Am Jur 2d, Damages, § 291.

 However, see 2 Callaghan’s Michigan Pleading & Practice, § 24.19, pp 425, 426.