MICHAEL REMAR V CATHERINE SUSAN TRUMBLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL REMAR,
UNPUBLISHED
June 15, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
CATHERINE SUSAN TRUMBLEY and WAYNE
TRUMBLEY, d/b/a SHAROLYN MOTEL,
No. 246500
Chippewa Circuit Court
LC No. 99-004616-NO
Defendants,
and
MADIGAN/PINGATORE INSURANCE
SERVICES,
Garnishee/Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Zahra and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary
disposition filed by garnishee defendant. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff sustained injuries when he was bitten by a brown recluse spider while staying at
the Sharolyn Motel, owned and operated by defendants Trumbley. Plaintiff obtained a $350,000
default judgment against defendants. Defendants’ insurer, Citizens Insurance Company,
declined to pay the judgment because it never received notice of the lawsuit as required by its
policy. Citizens was granted summary disposition of plaintiff’s garnishment claim.
Plaintiff filed a request and writ for garnishment against Madigan/Pingatore, the
insurance agency, reasoning that if Madigan/Pingatore received notice of the suit from the
Trumbleys but failed to act to protect the Trumbleys’ interests, then the Trumbleys had an
“errors and omissions” claim. Madigan/Pingatore moved for summary disposition pursuant to
MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that the writ failed to state a claim because it was not indebted to the
Trumbleys and did not control or possess any money or property belonging to the Trumbleys.
The trial court granted Madigan/Pingatore’s motion.
-1-
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Auto
Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468, 479; 642 NW2d 406 (2001).
Subject to the provisions of the garnishment statute, MCL 600.4011, a garnishee is liable
for all debts, whether or not due, owed by the garnishee to the defendant when the writ is served
on the garnishee, except for debts evidenced by negotiable instruments or representing the
earnings of the defendant. MCR 3.101(G)(1)(d). If the garnishee disputes liability, the trial
court must try the issue in the same matter as other civil actions. Waatti & Sons Electric Co v
Dehko, 249 Mich App 641, 644-645; 644 NW2d 383 (2002).
At the time plaintiff filed the writ, Madigan/Pingatore held no money or property that
belonged to the Trumbleys. The Trumbleys had filed no claim against Madigan/Pingatore, and
Madigan/Pingatore owed no obligation to the Trumbleys. No evidence indicates that plaintiff
received an assignment of any claim that the Trumbleys might have against Madigan/Pingatore.
Any obligation that Madigan/Pingatore might owe to the Trumbleys could not be determined in
the context of the garnishment action brought by plaintiff. Cf. Rutter v King, 57 Mich App 152,
169-170; 226 NW2d 79 (1974). Summary disposition was proper.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
