DAVID WILLIAMS V ARBOR HOME INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID WILLIAMS,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 17, 2002
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 225693
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-913425-NO
v
ARBOR HOME, INC. and MICHIGAN
ELEVATOR CO.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Updated Copy
February 14, 2003
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and O'Connell and Meter, JJ.
O'CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent. I concur with the majority opinion that the sole issue in this case
involves the application of MCR 2.112(K)(4). I also concur with the majority opinion that
plaintiff 's amended complaint complies with the requirements set forth in MCR 2.112(K).
However, I disagree with the majority's opinion that there exists no conflict between MCR
2.112(K)(4) and MCL 600.2957(2). I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff,
who complied with the requirements of the court rule, should be denied access to the appellate
courts. Therefore, I would allow the appeal to proceed.
In my opinion, the majority's decision achieves three unacceptable results in this case.
First, the decision is in conflict with Staff v Johnson, 242 Mich App 521; 619 NW2d 57 (2000)
(Hood, P.J., writing for the majority; O'Connell, J., dissenting on other grounds). Second, the
decision effectively denies plaintiff any appellate review of the lower court decision because
plaintiff followed the court rules exactly. Third, the decision subjects numerous Michigan
attorneys to malpractice claims for the common practice of filing an amended complaint without
leave granted. In Staff, supra at 531, Judge Hood held that MCR 2.112(K) and MCL
600.2957(2) were in conflict. Then, Judge Hood concluded, "the conflict between the court rules
and the statute is resolved in favor of the court rules because it involves a matter of procedure."
Staff, supra at 533, citing McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 26; 597 NW2d 148 (1999). The
majority opinion, using what can best be described as a process of smoke and mirrors, concludes
that the present subsections of the court rules and the statute are not in conflict. I prefer to use
previous case law that is exactly on point to conclude that a conflict exists.1 I also note that this
1
I note that under the no conflict court rule, MCR 7.215(I)(1), we are bound by our decision in
Staff.
-1-
issue would not exist unless the parties had already confronted this conflict between the statute
and the court rule.
In my opinion, the conflict is extremely simple.2 The court rule provides that under the
present factual situation, leave of the court is not required to file an amended complaint. MCR
2.112(K)(4). On the other hand, the statute implies that leave of the court must be obtained
before filing an amended complaint. MCL 600.2957(2). Ordinary common sense dictates that
either plaintiff is required to obtain leave of the court to file an amended complaint, or plaintiff is
not required to obtain leave of the court. Hence, a conflict exists. I concur with Judge Hood's
conclusion in Staff, supra, that the issue whether a plaintiff must file for leave to amend a
complaint is a matter of procedure, and, therefore, the court rule controls. See also McDougall,
supra.
Even if I accepted the majority's dubious logic concerning the interplay between the
statute and the court rule, I would not penalize the plaintiff for precisely following the court rule.
The unintended consequences of the majority's opinion is that numerous competent attorneys in
this state will now be subject to legal malpractice lawsuits for precisely following the court rules.
In my opinion, plaintiff should be allowed access to the appellate courts to argue his
substantive appellate issues. Therefore, I would allow the appeal to proceed.
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
2
Assuming the majority position is correct that there is no conflict, MCL 600.2957(2) does not
require a motion to be filed to amend the complaint. It does mandate that if a motion to amend is
filed within ninety-one days, the judge shall grant the motion.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.