As litigators, we have seen it. Your opponent has responded to the carefully drafted allegations in your complaint by repeatedly stating: “Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph __.” Perhaps your opponent has added the equally pointless appendage: “… and leaves plaintiff to its proofs.” Maybe attorneys try this because they want to avoid acknowledging the truth of an uncomfortable allegation. Maybe they are just afraid of commitment. Whatever the motive, this response violates the court rules, and using it could result in negative consequences for the defendant.

MCR 2.111 states the requirements for pleadings. It permits only four ways to answer allegations in the complaint. As to each allegation, the defendant must:

“state an explicit admission;”¹

“state an explicit … denial”² and “state the substance of the matters on which the pleader will rely to support the denial;”³

state the defendant “lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, which has the effect of a denial;”⁴ or

“plead no contest,”⁵ which “has the effect of an admission only for purposes of the pending action.”⁶

The rule reflects the long-established policy in Michigan that the “primary function” of pleadings is to give notice of the claim or defense so the opposing party can take a responsive position.⁷ “[A]n answer must be sufficiently specific so that a plaintiff will be able to adequately prepare his case.”⁸ Therefore, MCR 2.111(C) does not permit the defendant to straddle the fence. The defendant is required to take a specific position on each allegation in the complaint.

MCR 2.111(E)(1) also states the consequence of a response that does not explicitly deny an allegation: “Allegations in a pleading that requires a responsive pleading, other than allegations of the amount of damage or the nature of the relief demanded, are admitted if not denied in the responsive pleading.” (Emphasis added.) As a “neither admits nor denies” response is not an explicit denial, it is deemed an admission under MCR 2.111(E)(1).

The Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have long disapproved of “neither admit nor deny” as a response to allegations because it violates the pleading rules. They have also recognized that it should be deemed an admission of the allegation under those rules.⁹ In Pitcher v Pitcher, the Michigan Supreme Court succinctly observed: “Defendant’s answer to many of plaintiff’s charges is that he neither admits nor denies the charges. The matters being such that he must be considered as having personal knowledge of them, his answer in practical effect stands as an admission.”¹⁰

Blouin v Yeo illustrates the problem a defendant creates for itself by resorting to “neither admits nor denies.” In a fraud action, a defendant (Sayers) gave the following response to nearly every allegation against him: “Defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to his proofs.”¹¹ The plaintiff then filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Sayers’ responses constituted admissions of those allegations. Sayers opposed the motion, and at the hearing requested in the alternative leave to file an amended answer. The trial court granted summary disposition for the plaintiff and denied Sayers leave to file an amended answer. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the responses did not comply with MCR 2.111, and the responses “Defendant neither admits nor denies” were properly viewed as admissions:

[W]e conclude that Sayers’ answers were properly viewed as admissions because they failed to comply with the court rules.

* * *

In this case, Sayers’ responses to the plaintiff’s complaint failed to comply with MCR 2.111. The majority of Sayers’ responses were in the following form: “Defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to his proofs.” Although these responses are somewhat common, they are not specifically recognized by the court rule. By failing to either admit or deny the allegations, Sayers failed to give the plaintiff notice of the nature of his defense sufficient to permit the plaintiff to take a responsive position. Therefore, Sayers’ responses, “Defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to his proofs,” were properly viewed as admissions.¹²

However, the court determined that the trial court had erred in denying Sayers leave to file an amended answer.¹³

Similarly, in Houle v EMC Dev, the plaintiff obtained summary disposition on most of the counts in his complaint because the defendant responded “neither admits nor denies” to most of the allegations.¹⁴ Following trial on the remaining counts, the plaintiff sought attorney fees under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and sanctions. The trial court granted the request for attorney fees in part and denied the request for sanctions. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the responses violated the court rule but affirmed the trial court’s denial of sanctions:

The “neither admit nor deny” responses were not specifically recognized by MCR 2.111. Under MCR 2.111(E)(1), any allegation to which defendants replied “Neither admit nor deny” was deemed admitted. [Citations omitted].

Nonetheless, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the “neither admit nor deny” responses should not be sanctioned … The appropriate “sanction” for such responses, as our Supreme Court indicated in Pitcher, is to deem the allegations admitted. (Emphasis added.)¹⁵

The court also observed, “The ‘Neither admit nor deny’ responses here were akin to ‘no contest’ responses” under MCR 2.111(C)(2).¹⁶

The Court of Appeals has most recently reaffirmed that “neither admit nor deny” responses violate the court rules and constitute admissions to the allegations of the complaint. In Twp of Imlay v Schutte,¹⁷ the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against the defendant for operating a “commercial kennel” in violation of a township ordinance. “Defendant filed an answer in which she responded ‘Neither Admit or Deny” to virtually all of the allegations in the complaint.”¹⁸ In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the township under MCR 2.116(C)(9), the Court of Appeals concluded that the pleadings showed that the township was entitled to judgment, as the defendant “replied ‘Neither Admit or Deny’ to the relevant allegations.”¹⁹

Defendant’s responses are properly viewed as admissions because they failed to comply with the court rules …

In this case, defendant did not explicitly admit or deny the pertinent allegations, did not plead no contest, and did not claim a lack of sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. Instead, she simply answered, “Neither Admit or Deny.” The failure to respond in accordance with the court rules results in the allegations being deemed admitted. MCR 2.111(E)(1); [citations omitted].²⁰

LONGHOFER COMMENTARY

In Michigan Court Rules Practice (8th ed) (2025), the authors correctly state:

A response stating that the pleader “neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves plaintiff to its proofs” is not a denial under the rules. Indeed, this common formulation has the effect of admitting, not denying, an allegation, since allegations are deemed admitted if they are not denied [citing MCR 2.111(E)(1)].²¹

Longhofer also correctly cautions that “[e]xtreme care should be taken in preparing an answer to a pleading seeking affirmative relief because all allegations not denied are deemed admitted.”²² However, Longhofer then inexplicitly offers this contradictory view:

[W]hile one might arguably invoke MCR 2.111(E)(1), discussed below, to contend that a denial in a form improper under MCR 2.111(D) constitutes an admission of the allegations, since MCR 2.111(E) is not a sanctions provision, this strained reading should be avoided. In absence of bad faith or other aggravating circumstances, a motion for a more definite statement under MCR 2.115(A) would seem the most appropriate remedy, with sanctions only for disobedience of any resulting order.²³

This view is wrong for several reasons.

Longhofer cites no case support for this view, and as to the improper “neither admits nor denies” response, it fails to acknowledge cases such as Pitcher, Blouin, and Houle which recognize that such a response does constitute an admission. It also ignores the express provision of MCR 2.11(E)(1) that a failure to explicitly deny an allegation admits the allegation and the well-established rules of interpretation for court rules. Court rules are interpreted under the same principles as statutes.²⁴ A court must apply an unambiguous court rule as written and according to its plain meaning.²⁵

The plain words of MCR 2.11(E)(1) state the effect of a failure to explicitly deny allegations in a complaint: The allegations “are admitted.” Deeming a “neither admits nor denies” response an admission is not a sanction — it is the express consequence of that violation of the court rule. Nor is it a “strained reading”; to the contrary, it is the clear and required reading of the plain words of the court rule.

Finally, while a plaintiff may have the option to file a motion for more definite statement under MCR 2.115(A), nothing in the text of MCR 2.111 requires it. A court cannot read into a court rule language or requirements that are not there.²⁶ Therefore, a court cannot put on the plaintiff the onus to file a motion for definite statement in order to correct the defendant’s violation of the rule. The “correction” is expressly stated in MCR 2.111(E)(1).

Unfortunately, Longhofer’s “suggestion” has been cited in dictum in an unpublished case by a panel of the Court of Appeals: McPhail v Department of Education.²⁷ However, the court did so without any analysis or consideration of the problems with that view discussed above.²⁸ Therefore, that case is not authoritative or persuasive as to Longhofer’s suggestion that the express provision of MCR 2.111(E) (1) should not be applied as written.

CONCLUSION

The Michigan appellate courts have long recognized that a response that the defendant “neither admits nor denies” allegations in a complaint is improper and violates the court rules. By the plain meaning of MCR 2.111(E)(1), the consequence of that non-answer is the allegations are admitted.

There is no practical advantage to resort to “neither admits nor denies” in response to allegations in a complaint. Not only does it violate MCR 2.111(C) and the fundamental purpose of pleadings, it exposes the pleader to the consequence of the violation. When the responses are challenged, the offending attorney’s only recourse to avoid the allegation being deemed admitted under MCR 2.111(E) (1) is to seek leave of the court to file an amended answer (provided the grounds for amendment under MCR 2.118 are met) and then do what the attorney should have done in the first place.

Answering allegations in a complaint with one of the four forms authorized by MCR 2.111 is not difficult. It serves the purpose of the pleadings to inform the plaintiff of the defendant’s position on the allegations and to inform the plaintiff and the court of what is at issue in the case and what is not. While it may be the practice among some lawyers to resort to “neither admits nor denies,” it should be avoided altogether.