Motion to set aside a default & default judgment; MCR 2.603(D)(1); Affidavit requirements; Failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to damages; Jackson v Bulk AG Innovations, LLC

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-Gross’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment or in not conducting an evidentiary hearing as to damages. Plaintiff sued “defendant and others to recover unpaid property taxes and demolition costs that arose in 2014, 2015, and 2016” related to auctioned properties for which he was allegedly the winning bidder. As to setting aside the default, a “deputy submitted an affidavit of due diligence reflecting that he attempted to serve defendant at his last known address in Franklin on three different occasions.” The court noted that this address was among the properties for which alternate service was permitted under a court order. The “trial court’s order for alternate service required the deputy to tack or affix the pertinent documents to the door. And the deputy’s averment expressly stated that he posted the documents in accord with the trial court’s order.” Thus, the record did not support defendant’s “contention that it was unclear whether the deputy had complied with the” order. While defendant proffered his own affidavit, it “failed to delineate his residential address, whether he resided at the last known address when the deputy attempted service on three occasions, and whether he received the summons and complaint through the first-class mailing to his residential address in Franklin. Additionally, although [he] disputed his ownership of ‘most’ of the properties and thereby challenged responsibility for the taxes and demolition costs, he did not identify in the affidavit the specific properties that were transferred, to whom [they] were transferred, and documentation showing his lack of ownership interest.” As to the lack of an evidentiary hearing, “plaintiff submitted an itemized chart identifying each property, the outstanding taxes, the impact of subsequent auctions proceeds, and demolition offsets. Defendant’s response to the default judgment amount primarily addressed whether [he] was the responsible party. He continued to dispute an ownership interest at the pertinent time-period and whether plaintiff was in privity with” him. Under the circumstances, the court could not “conclude that the trial court clearly erred in its damage award.” Affirmed.