Brazos Higher Education Service Corporation v. Ann Marie Stinnett
329780
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Ann Stinnett stopped paying multiple private student loans; Brazos Higher Education Services Corporation (servicer) sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment seeking roughly $84,776.65.
- Loans originated with PNC and were assigned to Brazos and Acapita; promissory notes contained a choice-of-law clause selecting Pennsylvania law.
- Brazos served a summons that misstated Stinnett’s suite number, listed her work (not home) address, and misidentified her city of residence; Stinnett received the summons.
- Stinnett moved to dismiss under MCR 2.116(C)(2) (insufficient process) and MCR 2.116(C)(7) (statute of limitations), arguing Pennsylvania’s 4-year limitations period barred the claim and that clerical errors in the summons required dismissal.
- The trial court denied the motion and reconsideration without oral argument; the Court of Appeals affirmed, staying a scheduled trial pending appeal outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of process (MCR 2.116(C)(2)) | Summons met statutory and rule requirements; any errors were minor and did not prejudice Stinnett | Clerical errors (wrong suite, wrong city, used work not home address) rendered process insufficient and require dismissal | Denied: errors were clerical, did not prejudice Stinnett who received summons; court may amend or disregard non‑substantial defects under MCL 600.2301 |
| Applicable statute of limitations (MCR 2.116(C)(7)) | Michigan procedural law governs; Michigan 6‑year limitations applies so claim timely | Choice‑of‑law clause adopting Pennsylvania law makes Pennsylvania’s 4‑year limitations period applicable, barring the claim | Denied: limitations are procedural; Michigan applies, so claim is timely despite contractual choice‑of‑law for substantive issues |
| Scope of contractual choice‑of‑law clause | Choice‑of‑law applies to substantive rights only; not procedural limitations | Clause is broad and therefore incorporates Pennsylvania procedural law, including its limitations | Court rejected incorporation of Pennsylvania procedural rule; Rubin controls that Michigan procedural law still applies |
| Omission of oral argument & denial of reconsideration | No prejudice; parties fully briefed; no palpable error requiring reconsideration | Trial court abused discretion by not holding oral argument and mischaracterized filings, warranting reconsideration | Denied: dispensing with oral argument proper where issues were fully briefed; reconsideration fails because no palpable error affecting disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Moriarity v. Shields, 260 Mich. App. 566 (discusses de novo review of summary disposition under court rules)
- Zwiers v. Growney, 286 Mich. App. 38 (defines "process" to include issuance and service of summons and complaint)
- Rubin v. Gallagher, 294 Mich. 124 (choice‑of‑law clause does not import another state's procedural law; Michigan procedure governs enforcement)
- Collins v. Comerica Bank, 468 Mich. 628 (statute of limitations review is de novo)
- Fane v. Detroit Library Comm., 465 Mich. 68 (standards for reviewing (C)(7) motions and treating complaint allegations as true absent contrary affidavits)
- Delph v. Smith, 354 Mich. 12 (errors in summons require dismissal only if opposing party was prejudiced)