Motion to set aside a default judgment; Good cause; Notice requirement compliance; State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)

Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s request to set aside the default judgment, the court reversed and remanded. It found that the “trial court erred when it determined that plaintiff complied with the notice requirements, and” thus abused its discretion in denying the request to set aside the default. Further, the error warranted “setting aside the default without the need to establish a meritorious defense, the failure to comply with notice requirements results in the deprivation of due process.” The court noted that “plaintiff submitted the SCAO standard form that included sections for a request for entry of default, the actual entry of default, and the entry of a default judgment. Plaintiff requested entry of a default against defendant on” 2/4/24. for failure to appear. The trial court’s clerk entered the default on 2/15/24, and the trial court signed it on 2/14/24. The court noted that on the “form, plaintiff failed to fill in any information on the section for a certificate of mailing as required by MCR 2.603(A)(2) (‘If the defaulting party has not appeared, the notice to the defaulted party may be served by personal service, by ordinary first-class mail at his or her last known address or the place of service, or as otherwise directed by the court.’) This defect constituted good cause for purposes of setting aside the default judgment.” Also, the “request for entry of a default judgment did not comport with MCR 2.603(B)(1)(a)(ii). Specifically, when requesting a default judgment, notice must be given to the defaulted party if the relief requested is ‘different in kind from, or greater in amount than, that stated in the pleadings[.]’ The SCAO MC 07a form submitted by plaintiff sought an amount greater than the valuations presented in the complaint. Regardless of plaintiff’s characterization of the amount as a scrivener’s error, this requested amount in excess of the addition of the values set forth in the complaint triggered plaintiff’s obligation to provide notice, and it did not comply.” Thus, the “omission constituted a deprivation of due process that alleviated the defense requirement to present a meritorious defense.”