Court Opinion

ID: 9569160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:11:02.892241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:33.973110
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
(dissenting). Given the procedural background of this case, I must respectfully dissent.
There is no dispute that plaintiff failed to contest within fourteen days after service the garnishee disclosure filed by Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau). Under MCR 3.101(M)(2), the trial court would be required to accept as true the facts in Wausau’s garnishment disclosure wherein liability was denied and, consequently, a grant of summary disposition would be proper.
In this case, however, the trial court did not originally grant summary disposition for Wausau on this ground, although this ground was raised in Wausau’s original motion. The trial court’s April 18, 1988, order granting summary disposition was reversed by this Court on September 6, 1989.1 The Supreme Court denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal on July 17, 1990.2
Wausau waited sixteen months after the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal before refiling its motion for summary disposition based on plaintiff’s failure to contest timely Wausau’s garnishee disclosure. During this sixteen-month period, plaintiff challenged the disclosure and the parties engaged in extensive discovery. By the time Wausau refiled its motion for summary disposition, the *330technical defect had been cured. Under these circumstances, I believe it would be inequitable, and it would exalt form over substance, to deny plaintiff the right to an adjudication of the claim' on its merits. I would reverse the grant of summary disposition in favor of Wausau and remand the case.

 180 Mich App 154; 446 NW2d 610 (1989).

 435 Mich 867 (1990).