GARY GODBOUT V PROSPECT HILLS LTD PARTNERSHIP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GARY GODBOUT,
UNPUBLISHED
September 12, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 194721
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 95-495063 NO
PROSPECT HILLS LTD PARTNERSHIP and
CENTURY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PERRY DRUGS, INC.,
Defendant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and White and C. F. Youngblood*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
The trial court dismissed this premises liability action with prejudice as a consequence of
plaintiff’s failure to appear in court on the date duly scheduled for trial. Plaintiff appeals as of right. We
affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed plaintiff’s suit for failure to appear
at trial where the record is devoid of any circumstances that would excuse plaintiff’s failure to appear.
MCR 2.504(B)(1); Williams v Kroger Food Co, 46 Mich App 514, 516-517; 208 NW2d 549
(1973). Moreover, the trial court cannot be said to have abused its discretion by failing to adjourn trial
where plaintiff did not request an adjournment and good cause did not exist to grant such a request had
it been made. Zerillo v Dyksterhouse, 191 Mich App 228, 230; 477 NW2d 117 (1991). Finally, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his suit in light of
plaintiff’s failure to furnish mitigating circumstances that would excuse plaintiff’s failure to appear.
Williams, supra.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Carole F. Youngblood
-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.
