City of Huntington Woods v. Ajax Paving Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 105176 |
| Parties | CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS, a Michigan municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Shifman & Carlson, P.C. by Burton R. Shifman, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ralls & Mackey, P.C. by William Reid Ralls, James J. Urban and Bruce H. Edwards, Lansing, for defendant-appellee.
Before GRIBBS, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.
We granted rehearing of City of Huntington Woods v. Ajax, 177 Mich.App. 351; 441 N.W.2d 99 (1989), for the purpose of addressing one limited issue: whether defendant waived a possible limitations defense under MCR 3.602(I) before the trial court. After considering the arguments on motion for rehearing, we find it necessary to clarify our previous opinion.
At the original hearing on the appeal of this case, Ajax argued that plaintiff's cause was barred by the one-year period of limitations contained in MCR 3.602(I). The city had filed its complaint more than a year after its arbitration award was rendered. We held that Ajax had not properly preserved this issue for appeal, as it did not plead or raise it before the trial court, and we had no record to review. Providence Hosp. v. National Labor Union Health & Welfare Fund, 162 Mich.App. 191, 194, 412 N.W.2d 690 (1987).
Ajax contends on rehearing, correctly, that our ruling could be construed on remand to prevent it from pleading the bar of MCR 3.602(I) in its answer to the complaint. Such was not our intent. Ajax has never filed an answer to the complaint in this matter. It is entitled to wait until its responsive pleading to raise a statute of limitations defense. MCR 2.116(D)(2). Its motion for summary disposition was not such a pleading. MCR 2.110(A).
Therefore, Ajax is not precluded by our ruling from raising its statute of limitations defense in its responsive pleading before the trial court on remand. If it does so, the trial court will then exercise its discretion to determine whether to allow that part of plaintiff's cause which is based on the arbitration award. MCR 2.108(E), DAIIE v. Gavin, 416 Mich. 407, 423, 331 N.W.2d 418 (1982).
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc.
...v. Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., 177 Mich.App. 351, 356, 441 N.W.2d 99 (1989), rev'd in part on other grounds on rehearing 179 Mich.App. 600, 446 N.W.2d 331 (1989), Judge (now Justice) Marilyn Kelly said: "Our courts have long been supportive of arbitration agreements and have discouraged e......
-
Keywell & Rosenfeld v. Bithell
...and thereafter determined.") (emphasis added). 50. See MCR 2.113(A). 51. See, generally, Huntington Woods v. Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. (On Rehearing), 179 Mich.App. 600, 601, 446 N.W.2d 331 (1989) (applying plain language in MCR 2.110[A] to conclude that motion for summary disposition wa......
-
In re Forfeiture of A Quantity of Marijuana
...failure to assert their innocent owner affirmative defense did not waive that defense. See Huntington Woods v. Ajax Paving Indus., Inc. (On Rehearing), 179 Mich.App. 600, 601, 446 N.W.2d 331 (1989). Although plaintiff might properly have entered a default in this action before claimants' co......
-
Village of Dimondale v. Grable
...answer. A motion for summary disposition is not a responsive pleading under MCR 2.110(A). Huntington Woods v. Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. (On Rehearing), 179 Mich.App. 600, 601, 446 N.W.2d 331 (1989). The trial court in this case noted many alleged facts presented to it only in the wealth ......