Entry of a default; MCR 2.603(A)(1); Failure to appear at trial; Motion to set aside a default judgment; MCR 2.612(C)(1); Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc; Waived issue as to a hearing on damages

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a default against defendants after they failed to appear for trial, or in denying their motion to set aside the default judgment, the court affirmed. Defendants asserted that the default was improperly entered “because they did not fail to appear for trial or otherwise fail to defend this matter on the basis that a corporate representative for” defendant-Jenkins Construction appeared “at trial ready to testify about documentary evidence that defendants argue would have defeated plaintiff’s claim. But” this argument was directly contradicted by longstanding Michigan case “law, which does not allow a corporation to appear in court without counsel, but does permit an individual to appear in propria persona.” Given that no “attorney appeared at trial for Jenkins Construction,” Jenkins Construction “failed to appear at trial.” The same was true as to defendant-Jenkins, who “did not appear in propria persona,” or via an attorney. As to defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment, the record showed they “were aware that their former counsel had been suspended long before the date of the trial and that they nonetheless failed to retain new counsel.” The court also found that the Shawl factors did not favor them. “Defendants completely failed to appear at trial, as the trial court noted. The motion to set aside the default judgment was timely, but” they failed to “indicate why they waited 20 days to file it. Defendants note that the default judgment was served on their former counsel, not on them, but they fail to argue that they did not receive timely notice of the judgment nor do they even indicate that they provided the [trial] court with contact information after their attorney was suspended. The trial court thoroughly reviewed the circumstances behind defendants’ failure to appear and found that their neglect was not excusable.” The court also noted that “the size of the judgment was actually less than the sum certain pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint, and it was the precise amount that had been held to be in controversy in the” pretrial order.