STEVEN B MICHLIN V PATRICIA BLOVET
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STEVEN B. MICHLIN and LASERLAND,
UNPUBLISHED
April 27, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 210861
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 97-536699-NO
PATRICIA BLOVET,
Defendant-Appellee.
AFTER REMAND
Before: Hood, P.J., and Gage and Whitbeck, JJ.
GAGE, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that this case should be remanded
once again for further explanation by the trial judge regarding his decision to award plaintiffs
zero damages.
After reviewing the transcript of the trial court hearing and the court’s two opinions
concerning damages, I am not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial judge erred in
finding that plaintiffs suffered no damages. Meek v Dep’t of Transportation, 240 Mich App 105,
121; 610 NW2d 250 (2000); Walters v Snyder, 239 Mich App 453, 456; 608 NW2d 97 (2000). I
find it abundantly clear that the trial court was aware of and considered all evidence of damages
that plaintiffs presented. Furthermore, I find it sufficiently plain from the learned trial judge’s
opinions and remarks on the record that he viewed plaintiffs’ evidence of damages, including
plaintiff Michlin’s testimony and the accompanying documentation, totally incredible and
unreliable. The sole reason the testimony and documentation remained unchallenged before the
trial court was defendant’s lack of counsel.1 I find the trial judge’s explanations that he “found
that Plaintiff Michlin lacked credibility in his testimony regarding damages, and, that on the
whole, his evidence regarding damages was weak” adequately descriptive to support the denial of
any damages, Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209 Mich App 165, 176; 530
NW2d 772 (1995), and would defer to the trial judge’s opportunity to assess Michlin’s
credibility. In re Forfeiture of $19,250, 209 Mich App 20, 29; 530 NW2d 759 (1995).
1
As we noted in our previous opinion, Michlin’s testimony occurred “in response to a series of
extraordinarily leading questions posed by plaintiffs’ counsel.” Michlin v Blovet, unpublished
opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 210861, issued 6/13/00), slip op at 2, n
2.
-1-
I believe that a second remand is unnecessary and would constitute a waste of judicial
resources because further explanation or findings by the trial judge are not required to facilitate
appellate review, Triple E Produce Corp, supra at 177, and therefore would affirm.
/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.
