IN THE EST OF CASIMIRA L LIS DEC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re the ESTATE of CASIMIRA L. LIS, Deceased.
FLORENCE DEBLOIS, Personal Representative of
the ESTATE of CASIMIRA L. LIS, Deceased,
UNPUBLISHED
June 12, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 196547
Wayne Probate Court
LC No. 95-543933 SE
DAVID NOVOCK,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Jansen and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the summary dismissal of her action to determine ownership of
certain residential properties. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
To the extent that plaintiff challenges the trial court’s prior decision excluding the proffered
testimony of plaintiff and Wanda Donowski, the record does not include defendant’s motion in limine,
plaintiff’s response to the motion, the proffered testimony, the transcript of the motion hearing or the
court’s ruling. Because plaintiff has failed to provide these items as required by MCR 7.210 and
because any determination of the merits of plaintiff’s appellate challenge would necessitate a review of
these materials, plaintiff’s failure to provide these materials waives appellate review of any challenge to
the court’s exclusion of the proffered testimony. People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 535; 531
NW2d 780 (1995); Myers v Jarnac, 189 Mich App 436, 444; 474 NW2d 302 (1991).
With regard to plaintiff’s claim that the court erroneously excluded the proffered testimony of
the decedent’s former treating physician, plaintiff did not argue below that the evidence was admissible
pursuant to MRE 803(24). Accordingly, her evidentiary challenge is not preserved for appellate
review. Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Lozanis, 215 Mich App 415, 421; 546 NW2d 648 (1996).
Additionally, the record does not include defendant’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff’s
response to the motion, or the excluded proffered testimony of the doctor. Because plaintiff failed to
provide these materials as required by MCR 7.210 and because any determination of the merits of
-1
plaintiff’s challenge to the exclusion of the testimony or to the propriety of the grant of summary
disposition would necessitate a review of these materials, plaintiff’s failure to provide these materials
waives appellate review of her challenges. Anderson, supra; Myers, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
