Alfreda Moses v. Richard Nethers
329829
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Alfreda Moses sued Christian Builders and its partners for a $53,591.43 partnership debt; she previously obtained a default judgment against Christian Builders and Paul Nethers.
- Moses later sued Richard Nethers (another partner) claiming he was liable for the same partnership debt.
- A July 9, 2014 default judgment against Richard was entered but the trial court set it aside on August 15, 2014 after motion by Richard.
- Richard moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), submitting documentary evidence that the prior action had reduced the partnership claim to judgment without naming him.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for Richard on June 10, 2015; Moses appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in setting aside the July 9, 2014 default judgment | The default judgment should stand; setting it aside was improper | Counsel showed good cause and filed affidavit showing meritorious defense (attacked complaint adequacy) | No abuse: setting aside was proper under MCR 2.603(D)(1) because good cause and meritorious-defense affidavit requirements satisfied |
| Whether the complaint satisfied MCR 2.111(B)(1) (pleading requirements) | Complaint adequately stated facts and liability under MCL 449.15 | Complaint was conclusory (six one-sentence paragraphs) and failed to inform defendant of claims | Complaint was inadequate; defendants could reasonably show meritorious defense from its insufficiency |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was appropriate because prior judgment against partnership bars later suit against unnamed partner | Moses argued she could proceed against Richard despite earlier partnership judgment and that remedies/joinder rules allowed recovery | Richard argued prior judgment against partnership and some partners (joint judgment) bars suit against previously unnamed partner for same claim | Summary disposition affirmed: prior joint judgment precluded the subsequent action against the unnamed partner |
| Whether affirmative defenses (waiver, estoppel), permissive joinder, election of remedies affect outcome | Moses claimed waiver/estoppel and joinder rules allowed suit | Richard asserted his pleadings and the prior judgment preclude relief; misreading of joint vs joint-and-several liability | Court rejected Moses’s arguments; prior joint judgment barred additional recovery and defendant’s defenses were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Shawl v Spence Bros Inc, 280 Mich App 213 (discretionary review of setting aside default judgment)
- Teel v Meredith, 284 Mich App 660 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Doe v Racette, 313 Mich App 105 (treatment of complaint contents in (C)(7) motions)
- Peterson Novelties, Inc v Berkley, 259 Mich App 1 (effect of prior partnership judgment on later suits against partners)
- Candee & Scribner v Clark & Brown, 2 Mich 255 (historic authority on partners and judgments)
- Mason v Eldred, 73 US 231 (historic federal authority on partner-judgment principles)