Huntington National Bank v. Ristich
292 Mich. App. 376
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Huntington National Bank sues Ristich for breach of two loans (BMW financing ~$55,000; credit-line ~$25,000) and fraud, alleging no security interest and misrepresented income.
- Defendant was served Oct 5, 2009 and, proceeding pro se, moved for an evidentiary hearing and a stay claiming potential self‑incrimination.
- Plaintiff obtained a default for failure to plead or defend; plaintiff moved for findings and a default judgment; defendant sought to set aside with an affidavit of meritorious defense.
- Jan 4, 2010, the court denied the evidentiary hearing/stay, instructed defendant to answer paragraph by paragraph and raise privilege in responses, and to move in writing to set aside.
- Jan 25, 2010, the court denied the motion to set aside, found no meritorious defense, and entered a default judgment for plaintiff ($86,423.06 plus interest).
- On appeal, defendant contends staying equates to extension of time to answer; court rejects this and affirms the default and judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a stay/evidentiary hearing request extend the answer deadline? | Plaintiff argues stay did not extend time to answer; default proper. | Defendant argues stay acts as extension of time to file an answer. | No; stay is not an extension of time to answer. |
| Does invoking the self‑incrimination privilege excuse filing an answer? | Plaintiff argues privilege invocation in answer is required; failure to answer permits default. | Defendant claims privilege excuses answering. | Privilege cannot excuse filing an answer; defendant must answer and invoke per paragraph. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in denying set aside and entering default judgment? | Plaintiff contends timely default and lack of meritorious defense justify judgment. | Defendant asserts good cause and meritorious defense warrant setting aside. | No abuse; defendant failed to show good cause and meritorious defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463 (2003) (extensions and attacks on pleadings; timing rules)
- Shawl v Spence Bros, Inc, 280 Mich App 213 (2008) (good cause and manifest injustice framework)
- Saffian v Simmons, 477 Mich 8 (2007) (standard for abuse of discretion in default matters)
- Danziger v Moll, 238 Mich 39 (1927) (privilege against self-incrimination in civil pleading)
- North River Ins Co v Stefanou, 831 F2d 484 (CA4 1987) (pleading stage privilege does not excuse filing a responsive pleading)
- Marposs Corp v Autocam Corp, 183 Mich App 166 (1990) (defendant must plead or defend; default setting guidance)