Centala v. Navrude
| Decision Date | 23 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 13758,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 206 N.W.2d 544,45 Mich.App. 282 |
| Parties | Irene B. CENTALA, as Guardian for the Estate of Suzanne Irene Centala, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Evonne Marilyn NAVRUDE et al., Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
William H. Goodman, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
James J. Brown, St. Ignace, Charles H. Menmuir, Traverse City, for defendants-appellees.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
Plaintiff's daughter was rendered mentally incompetent as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident on January 17, 1965.
Subsequently the plaintiff, as the duly court-appointed guardian of her daughter, brought suit in Cheboygan County Circuit Court against defendant Navrude, the driver of the auto in which her daughter was a passenger; defendant Quance, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision; and Quance's employer, the County of Mackinac.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff negotiated a settlement with defendant Quance for the full amount of his liability insurance, I.e. $25,000. 1 Accordingly, plaintiff procured an opinion and order of the Presque Isle County Probate Court which stated that it was 'for the best interest' of the ward that the sum agreed upon 'be accepted in full and complete settlement of any and all claims which the said guardian * * * may now have or hereafter assert against William Wallace Quance * * *' relative to the auto accident. In addition, the opinion and order directed the plaintiff to execute all the 'necessary and proper releases'.
Pursuant to the opinion and order of the probate court, plaintiff signed a release in August of 1966, which purported to discharge defendant Quance, 'his heirs, executors, administrators, agents and assigns, and all other persons, firms or corporations * * *' from liability for injuries occasioned by the automobile accident. The settlement was paid and defendant Quance was discharged from the circuit court action. 2
In October of 1968, the County of Mackinac moved for a summary judgment on the ground that as a principal, the release executed by the plaintiff to its agent Quance also operated to release the county. See for example New York Central R. Co. v. Michigan Milk Producers Ass'n, 3 Mich.App. 648, 143 N.W.2d 590 (1966). The trial court concurred and entered a summary judgment in favor of the county. 3
Plaintiff appealed the entry of the summary judgment to this Court claiming that the circuit court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether or not the settlement and release was for the best interests of the ward. We agreed and remanded the case back for the requisite hearing. See Centala v. Navrude, 30 Mich.App. 30, 186 N.W.2d 35 (1971).
In accordance with our opinion, the circuit court held a rehearing on the matter in May of 1971. Plaintiff's counsel failed to make an appearance. No witnesses were presented on behalf of the plaintiff. The only witness to testify was defendant Quance who related that while he was traveling south on Interstate 75, drifting snow at the bottom of a hill obscured his vision. As he emerged from the blowing snow, he saw the car in which plaintiff's daughter was riding straddling the center of the roadway. He stated that under the circumstances he was unable to avoid colliding with this vehicle. Defendant Quance also explained that aside from the liability insurance proceeds all of his other personal assets were held jointly with his wife. At the conclusion of this hearing the circuit court indicated that it was inclined to find the settlement reasonable.
A second hearing was held in November of 1971 at the request of plaintiff's counsel. At this hearing the plaintiff testified as to the full extent of her ward's injuries. In short the ward will be unable to ever walk, talk or take care of herself again. Both the plaintiff and her counsel stated that had they understood the release of defendant Quance would automatically discharge the County of Mackinac, the release would have never been executed because such a result was not in the best interests of the ward.
After considering all of the evidence presented at the two hearings, the circuit court refused to set aside the release and thereby upheld the summary judgment in favor of the County of Mackinac. From this decision plaintiff brings the instant appeal.
While the hearing to determine the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCurry v. School Dist. of Valley
...Co., 87 Mich.App. 466, 274 N.W.2d 822 (1978); Thomas v. Checker Cab Co., 66 Mich.App. 152, 238 N.W.2d 558 (1975); Centala v. Navrude, 45 Mich.App. 282, 206 N.W.2d 544 (1973); and Henry B. Steeg and Associates v. Rynearson, 143 Ind.App. 567, 241 N.E.2d 888 Other courts have held that a coven......
-
Stanfield v. Laccoarce
...505 P.2d 1265 (1973); Edgar County Bank & Trust Co. v. Paris Hospital, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 298, 312 N.E.2d 259 (1974); Centala v. Navrude, 45 Mich.App. 282, 206 N.W.2d 544 (1973).9 Defendants also argue that "the document is ambiguous and the trial court should have heard evidence of the partie......
-
Thomas v. Checker Cab Co., Inc.
...City Transport Corp. 272 Mich. 91, 261 N.W. 257 (1935); Boucher v. Thomsen, 328 Mich. 312, 43 N.W.2d 866 (1950); Centala v. Navrude, 45 Mich.App. 282, 206 N.W.2d 544 (1973). Reversed and remanded, cost of this appeal to V. J. BRENNAN, Judge (dissenting). The trial judge could properly direc......
-
Pleznac v. Griva
...without a hearing to determine whether it is in the best interests of the minor would be error. Centala, supra, Centala v. Navrude, 45 Mich.App. 282, 284-285, 206 N.W.2d 544 (1973), and Moebius v. McCracken, 261 Mich. 409, 414, 246 N.W. 163 Defendant's brief cites 3 Callaghan's Michigan Ple......