Bee Prop. Mgmt. v. United Motors, LLC

• Decision Date: 19 January 2023
• Docket Number: 360073
• Parties: BEE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED MOTORS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

BEE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED MOTORS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 360073

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 19, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2020-182205-CB.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant defaulted on a loan it received from plaintiff, and plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requested admissions during the litigation, and defendant did not respond in a timely manner. Those admissions were deemed admitted and the trial court granted plaintiff summary disposition on the breach of contract claim. Defendant now appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff served defendant with an amended request for admission on April 16, 2021. MCR 2.312(B)(1) requires that responses to requests for admission must be made and served on the party within 28 days after the request was served, or the admissions will be admitted. Accordingly, defendant had until May 14, 2021, to serve its answers. Defendant did not serve any answers by the deadline, and plaintiff moved to admit those admissions. In relevant part, those admissions included that defendant had signed the promissory note through an agent authorized to do business on behalf of defendant defendant had not made a single payment under the schedule of the promissory note, and defendant owed plaintiff $115,000 plus interest and late fees.

Plaintiff also moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted plaintiff summary disposition on its claim for breach of contract because there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendant breached the contract when considering the admissions made under MCR 2.312(B)(1) and conclusively established under MCR 2.312(D)(1). The trial court declined to apply the factors in Janczyk v Davis, 125 Mich.App. 683, 691-692; 337 N.W.2d 272 (1983) concerning a party's ability to file a motion to untimely answer a request for admissions because, the trial court held, those factors required defendant to submit a motion.

"We review de novo a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary disposition." Sherman v City of St Joseph, 332 Mich.App. 626, 632; 957 N.W.2d 838 (2020) (citations omitted). This Court reviews a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) "by considering the pleadings admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Patrick v Turkelson, 322 Mich.App. 595, 605; 913 N.W.2d 369 (2018). "Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Sherman, 332 Mich.App. at 632. This Court reviews a trial court's decision whether to allow a party to amend its admissions under MCR 2.312(D)(1) for an abuse of discretion. Medbury v Walsh, 190 Mich.App. 554, 556 476 N.W.2d 470 (1991).

The trial court held that the admissions were properly deemed admitted under MCR 2.312, which states in relevant part:

(B) Answer; Objection

(1) Each matter as to which a request is made is deemed admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request, or within a shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter. Unless the court orders a shorter time a defendant may serve an answer or objection within 42 days after being served with the summons and complaint.

* * *

(D) Effect of Admission

(1) A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of an admission. For good cause the court may allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission. The court may condition amendment or withdrawal of the admission on terms that are just.

Defendant admits that its answers to plaintiff's requests for admissions were late, and the record does not contain any motion from defendant to request additional time to answer plaintiff's request or to amend or withdraw the admissions already admitted. Accordingly, those admissions were properly deemed admitted under MCR 2.312(B)(1) and conclusively established under MCR 2.312(D)(1).

Instead, defendant argues that the trial court erred by using the admissions as the basis for the summary disposition because defendant should have been allowed to amend or withdraw the admissions under Janczyk, even though defendant made no motion to amend or withdraw.

Janczyk concerned "the...