e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 80492
Opinion Date : 11/16/2023
e-Journal Date : 11/27/2023
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Forsberg v. Wallin
Practice Area(s) : Contracts Litigation
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Riordan, Cavanagh, and Garrett
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Contract dispute over an allegedly abandoned home construction & renovation project; Motion to adjourn; Rosselott v Muskegon Cnty; Summary disposition

Summary

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant an adjournment and granting plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition in this contract dispute action. Plaintiff hired defendant to construct a garage and do some additional work on his home. Plaintiff paid for the work and defendant started the job, but eventually abandoned it. Plaintiff sued alleging several claims. The trial court eventually denied defendant’s motion for an adjournment and granted summary disposition for plaintiff. On appeal, the court found that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for an adjournment. “The lack of prior adjournments . . . went hand in hand with defendant’s general lack of vigorous advocacy, and thus does not undercut the trial court’s decision.” In addition, the lack-of-diligence factor strongly supported the trial court’s decision. Further, “in light of defendant’s utter failure to defend this case, or even allude to any substantive defenses he might have, along with his complete lack of diligence in trying to secure counsel in the first place—defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the denial of an adjournment.” The court also found that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for plaintiff. “Defendant’s wholesale failure to answer the vast majority of the complaint, together with his deficient attempt to answer those few paragraphs for which he checked the ‘denial’ box, constituted an admission to all of plaintiff’s allegations except those concerning the amount of damages, and thus summary disposition” for failure to state a valid defense was appropriate. “And because defendant provided no evidence—nor even a response—in reply to plaintiff’s motion and accompanying documentary evidence, defendant failed to raise any genuine question of material fact about any part of plaintiff’s complaint, and thus summary disposition” was appropriate in that regard as well. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion