Court Opinion

ID: 9720345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:26:52.400286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.358395
License: Public Domain

Doctoroff, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in parí). I concur with sections I and n of the majority opinion.
Regarding section m, I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in assigning plaintiff the burden of proving fraud. However, I would reverse and remand for trial, rather than for more hearings.
As noted by the majority, the trial court stated:
The testimony on both sides with respect to the issues in question being equally credible, this case revolves (sic.) itself then on the burden of proof which requires plaintiff to establish their [sic] version of the events by a preponderance of the evidence. [Emphasis added.]
I believe this record sufficiently demonstrates that the trial court believed plaintiff presented more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance, sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity. The trial court found the testimony on both sides to be equally credible. Because the ultimate burden of proof was on defendants, the issue should have been resolved in favor of plaintiff. It was only because of *241the court’s erroneous assignment of the burden of proof to plaintiff that it found the agreement to be valid.
Although the trial court did not explicitly analyze the evidence in accordance with McKinstry v Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, PC, 428 Mich 167, 181; 405 NW2d 88 (1987), it is patently clear from the record that the trial court did not believe that defendants had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the arbitration agreement was valid. I do not think another evidentiary hearing is required to make that determination. This case was filed in 1990. After eight years, I believe it is time we had a trial.