Court Opinion

ID: 9669939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:20.562148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.228503
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from Division II and from the result because I feel it was unfair to grant summary judgment without giving defendants an opportunity to resist after filing pf the “Second Summary Judgment Motion.” The majority’s conclusion this was nothing more than a renewal of the first motion doesn’t quite answer the real question: were defendants entitled to an opportunity to offer a reason for not meeting the conditions of the trial court’s earlier 30-day order.
I do not quarrel with the premise the trial court could consider this merely a renewal of the first motion; but I do say it should not have done so by shutting off defendants’ possible explanation for what seems on its face to be inexcusable disregard of the previous order. Entry of judgment for more than $100,000.00 without a trial on the merits and with no showing of culpable disregard of the earlier order seems palpably unjust, particularly when the defendants could justificably assume the second motion would receive the same formal consideration rule 237 motions usually get.
I would remand for the purpose of allowing defendants to show, if they can, reasons why they should be excused from the consequences of their apparent inattention and neglect.