DONALD E DUNN V LAWRENCE HEITE

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRENT JOHNSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHELLE JOHNSON, and LINDA JOHNSON, FOR PUBLICATION December 15, 2000 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs, v LAWRENCE HEITE, DETROIT EDISON, VERNA'S TAVERN, INC., ANDREW LEE ERVING, TIMDAN, INC., and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, No. 212011 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 95-536225 NI Defendants, and VERNA'S TAVERN, INC., Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, v LAWRENCE HEITE and DETROIT EDISON, Cross-Defendants-Appellees. DONALD E. DUNN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DAVID E. DUNN, NANCY J. DUNN, and TINA ZUBOR, Plaintiffs, v LAWRENCE HEITE, VERNA'S TAVERN, INC., ANDREW LEE ERVING, DETROIT EDISON -1- No. 212029 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 95-536228 NI COMPANY, TIMDAN, INC., and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants, and VERNA'S TAVERN, INC., Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant, Updated Copy February 2, 2001 v LAWRENCE HEITE and DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, Cross-Defendants-Appellees. Before: Hood, P.J., and Gage and Whitbeck, JJ. GAGE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the lead opinion's analysis and conclusion that a judgment enforcing a mediation award does not satisfy the dramshop act's prerequisites for indemnification. MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993. I respectfully dissent from the lead opinion's conclusion that Hoover Corners, Inc v Conklin, 230 Mich App 567; 584 NW2d 385 (1998), requires that we remand the instant case to permit Verna's Tavern the opportunity to demonstrate its liability and establish its right to indemnification. I endorse the majority's expressed view that "a claim for indemnification under MCL 436.22(7); MSA 18.993(7) cannot survive a settlement," ante at ___, and thus, like the majority, I fail to comprehend the necessity or nature of a proceeding on remand. Unlike the majority, however, I do not view Hoover Corners' penultimate sentence reflecting the panel's choice of procedural disposition as essential or necessarily involved in determining the legal -2- issues the Hoover Corners parties raised. People v Kevorkian, 205 Mich App 180, 190, n 6; 517 NW2d 293 (1994). Accordingly, I do not believe Hoover Corners demands the unnecessary remand. I would affirm. /s/ Hilda R. Gage -3-