Court Opinion

ID: 9673100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:06:13.713581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.212305
License: Public Domain

C. C. Schmucker, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in part and dissent in part. The trial court entered the default of the defendant for failure to appear at trial. Although defendant or defendant’s counsel is clearly culpable, the failure to appear at trial was clearly a mistake and was not defiance of the court’s authority. Indeed, it appears that the plaintiff’s filing of a motion for summary disposition and noticing it for hearing after the scheduled trial date may have contributed to the mistake.
The trial court imposed the most serious sanction that it could on the defendant. Entering the default of the defendant is similar to dismissing a claim of a *79plaintiff. Although a circuit court has the authority to enter the default of the defendant, such measures should be exercised cautiously. MacArthur Patton Christian Ass’n v Farm Bureau Ins Group, 403 Mich 474; 270 NW2d 101 (1978). The conduct of the defendant was not so egregious that the drastic step of default should have been taken. The trial court had other sanctions available, such as the imposition of costs.
I would find that the use of the most drastic sanction of default was not justified by the facts of this case and was an abuse of discretion.
In regard to the remaining issues, I concur with Judge Corrigan.