SIRAJUDDIN AHMAD V SYED LATAFAT HUSAIN HAMZAVI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SIRAJUDIN AHMAD d/b/a CRESCENT
BUILDERS,
UNPUBLISHED
August 15, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 194355
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 91-412792
SYED LATAFAT HUSAIN HAMZAVI,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MYRON F. POE, POE LAW OFFICES,
C. WILLIAM GARRATT, and GARRATT
LAW OFFICES,
Garnishee Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Kelly and Gribbs, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order disbursing money pursuant to writs of periodic
garnishment served upon garnishee defendants. The order permitted garnishee defendants to retain
$39,835.88 from a cash bond previously posted by defendant in a prior appeal. The court ordered
payment of the remainder of the cash bond that was held by garnishee defendant Poe, one of
defendant’s attorneys, to plaintiff and his counsel in partial satisfaction of an outstanding judgment. We
affirm.
First, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to quash the garnishment writs. He
claims that the writs were improper where they were writs for periodic garnishment and not writs for
non-periodic garnishment. However, defendant cites no authority for the position that where the wrong
writ forms were issued and served upon garnishee defendants, the writs must be quashed and payments
thereon cannot be ordered. Where a party does not provide supporting authority, this Court need not
look for authority to support that party’s position. Samonek v Norvell Twp, 208 Mich App 80, 86;
-1
527 NW2d 24 (1994). Where no authority is cited for the issue, we deem the issue abandoned.
Magee v Magee, 218 Mich App 158, 161; 553 NW2d 363 (1996).
Defendant next argues that service of the writs of garnishment was improper where no
disclosure forms or disclosure f es were paid pursuant to MCR 3.101(F)(1) and where garnishee
e
defendants, C. William Garratt and the Garratt Law Firm, were not properly served with the writs
pursuant to MCR 2.105. Again, we decline to address this issue where defendant provides no authority
for the position that improper service of the writs of garnishment necessitates that they be quashed.
However, we direct defendant’s attention to MCR 2.105(J)(3) which states:
An action shall not be dismissed for improper service of process unless the service
failed to inform the defendant of the action within the time provided in these rules for
service.
See also, Holliday v Townley, 189 Mich App 424, 426; 473 NW2d 733 (1991); Bunner v BlowRite Insulation, 162 Mich App 669; 413 NW2d 474 (1987) and Hill v Frawley, 155 Mich App 611;
400 NW2d 328 (1986). Where all of the parties received notice of the garnishment proceedings and
had an opportunity to be heard, improprieties in the manner or content of service do not necessitate
reversal of the trial court’s decision to order payment on the writs of garnishment.
Finally, defendant argues that there should have been a set-off between the judgment entered in
this case in favor of plaintiff and a judgment that was entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff in
another action instituted in the Oakland Circuit Court. This issue is moot because the judgment entered
in favor of defendant was later vacated in an unpublished per curiam opinion by this Court. Hamzavi v
Ahmad, Docket No. 179155, issued 7/30/96. Moreover, defendant again has failed to cite any
authority for the proposition that mutual judgments must be set-off from one another. We find no merit
in this argument.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.
