DENISE PALMER V ASTA CREDIT CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DENISE PALMER,
UNPUBLISHED
June 27, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 179880
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-410955-NO
ASTA CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
METRO MANOR,
Defendant.
DENISE PALMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 183210
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-420157-NO
ASTA CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
METRO MANOR,
Defendant.
-1
Before: White, P.J., and Cavanagh and J. B. Bruff*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In docket no. 179880, plaintiff appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing her negligence claim
without prejudice, following the circuit court’s denial of her petitions for issuance of second summons,
MCR 2.102(D), and for service by alternate means, MCR 2.105(I). In docket no. 183210, plaintiff
appeals the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition to defendant on statute of limitations
grounds. We reverse.
As required by MCR 2.102(D), plaintiff presented a petition for issuance of second summons
to the circuit court on June 30, 1994, within ninety one days after filing her complaint on March 31,
1994. Plaintiff supported the petition with an eighteen paragraph affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel setting
forth in detail the extensive efforts counsel made to serve the original summons. The affidavit stated that
plaintiff retained counsel’s law firm in October 1992 to investigate a possible premises liability cause of
action as a result of an injury plaintiff sustained in April 1991. The affidavit further stated that plaintiff
informed counsel that the premises were located in the City of Detroit and owned by Metro Manor, and
that in November 1992, June 1993, and October 1993, the law firm tendered plaintiff’s claim to Metro
Manor, but no response was forthcoming. The affidavit stated that in February 1994, on inquiry of the
City of Detroit Finance Department, Assessments Division, the property’s taxpayer was discovered to
be Asta Credit Corporation, of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. In March 1994, counsel forwarded to
the New Jersey address a notice of intent to file suit, but no response was received. Also in March
1994, counsel confirmed with the Wayne County Register of Deeds that Asta Credit Corporation had
owned the property in February 1991. The affidavit stated t at counsel inquired of the State of
h
Michigan and determined that Asta was not qualified to do business in the State of Michigan. The
affidavit further stated that plaintiff filed suit against Asta and Metro Manor on March 31, 1994. On
April 9, 1994, counsel inquired of the State of New York regarding Asta’s status and was advised that
Asta Credit Corporation had changed its name in 1983 to Asta Group, Inc., that the corporation did
not maintain a resident agent, and that all mail intended for the corporation should be forwarded to
Benjamin J. Pomerance, on Broadway in New York city. Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded the summons
and complaint to the New York City Sheriff on April 18, 1994, and on April 21, 1994, sent by certified
mail the summons and complaint to Asta, in care of Mr. Pomerance. The affidavit stated that on or
about May 10, 1994, counsel received the certified letter, returned by the postal service and marked
“moved, left no address.” On June 3, 1994, counsel received the New York City Sheriff’s return
indicating that defendant was not known at the Broadway address in New York. In June 1994,
plaintiff’s counsel contacted New York City directory assistance for phone numbers for “Asta Group,”
was given a number, and upon calling, was told that Asta Group was located at an address on Madison
Avenue in New York. On June 22, 1994, plaintiff’s counsel retained a process serving company in
New York City to attempt service at the Madison Avenue address. On June 29, 1994, the process
serving company advised plaintiff’s counsel that the tenant at the Madison Avenue address was not
defendant, but an unrelated company known as “Astor Group.” Finally, the affidavit stated that “[f]or
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-2
the foregoing reasons, service of process on defendant Asta Credit Corp. was not obtained as of June
30, 1994.” The circuit court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition states no reason and there is no
indication in the record that a hearing was held.
Michigan Court Rules Practice states in pertinent part:
Common sense, the realities of legal practice, and MCR 1.105, see Authors’ Comment,
that rule, all dictate that, under ordinary circumstances, a party’s request that a second
summons issue should be granted by the court on only a minimal showing of good
cause, and that the court should focus its discretion more on the question of what will be
the expiration date of the second summons. [1 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan
Court Rules Practice, 1996 pocket part, p 28.]
We conclude that plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit established good cause and that the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s petitions for issuance of second summons and service by
alternative means. Further, we reject defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to have both filed
her complaint and either served defendant or made immediate arrangements for service no later than
April 1, 1994, when the period of limitations expired. When a complaint is filed before the applicable
statute of limitations expires, as was the case here, service of process may take place any time within the
life of the summons or properly extended summons, as provided in MCR 2.102(D). See Busciano v
Rhodes, 385 Mich 474; 189 NW2d 202 (1971).
We therefore reverse the circuit court’s denial of these petitions, vacate the circuit court’s order
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, and remand for further proceedings. In light of our
disposition, plaintiff’s consolidated appeal in docket no. 183210 is moot.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Mark J. Cavangh
/s/ John B. Bruff
-3
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.