LIGHTHOUSE PLACE DEVELOPMENT LLC V MOORINGS ASSN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LIGHTHOUSE PLACE DEVELOPMENT,
L.L.C.,
UNPUBLISHED
April 28, 2009
Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee,
v
MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, d/b/a MOORINGS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCATION,
No. 280863
Berrien Circuit Court
LC No. 2005-003263-CH
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ThirdParty-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
HARBOR GRAND, L.L.C., and LIGHT HARBOR
MOORINGS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
Third-Party-Defendants,
and
LIGHT HARBOR MOORINGS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCATION,
Cross-Plaintiff,
v
HARBOR GRAND, L.L.C.,
Cross-Defendant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
MURRAY, P.J. (concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion affirming the trial court’s opinion and orders. I write
separately to merely indicate an additional reason for affirming the trial court’s ruling on the
standing issue. In my view, the trial court correctly denied defendants’ “motion to dismiss” on
-1-
the basis of standing because the motion was not filed in accordance with the court rules, and
even if it was, it was properly denied under the appropriate court rules.
Specifically, the Michigan Court Rules recognize motions for summary disposition, not
motions to dismiss, and those dispositive motions must be based upon one of the grounds set
forth in MCR 2.116(C)(1)-(10), and must comply with the time requirement set forth within
MCR 2.116(G)(1)(a), unless the court directs otherwise which did not happen in this case. Here,
defendant’s “motion to dismiss” was not filed 21 days prior to the motion hearing, but instead
only 13 days prior to the hearing. It therefore was not in compliance with MCR
2.116(G)(1)(a)(i), and could have been properly denied for that reason alone.
Additionally, because there was no documentary evidence attached to defendant’s
“motion to dismiss,” it would not have been properly brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10). See
MCR 2.116(G)(4). And, as the trial court noted, the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, when
viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are sufficient to establish standing. These
procedural reasons are an independent basis upon which to affirm the trial court’s order.
/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.