Court Opinion

ID: 9695402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:18:51.233465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.054062
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). I agree with Mr. Justice O’Hara that the summary judgment entered by Judge Piggins against defendant Smith must be reversed.
While plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment asserted that there was no genuine defense set forth by defendants, its real thrust, considering the affidavits in support of it, was as a motion filed under GOB 1963, 117.2(3) asserting the right to summary judgment because there were no genuine issues of material fact.
It was quite evident when the motion was called for hearing that the plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment without more. What was lacking was sought to be supplied by testimony from the defendant Smith and from the plaintiff Lawrence Zamler. That testimony appears in 32 typewritten pages of the record made below.
*682My concurrence with Justice O’Hara’s reversal is based upon the fact that the trial judge undertook to resolve at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment disputed issues of fact upon the basis of the testimony he heard. His only appropriate role at that time was to determine from the pleadings, affidavits and other evidence before him that there were genuine issues of fact. Consequently summary judgment under G-CR 1963, 117.2 (3) was unavailable as a remedy. See my opinion in Durant v. Stahlin (Appeal in re Van Dusen, Elliott, Romney), 375 Mich 628, 640, also decided this day.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Dethmers and Smith, JJ., concurred with Souris, J.
Kelly and Black, JJ., concurred in result.