INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE V HELEN DORSEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA and UNITED BROADCASTING
NETWORK, INC.,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 16, 2006
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiffs/CounterdefendantsAppellees,
No. 248412
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 97-008442 CB
v
HELEN DORSEY, PAT CHOATE, and
EDWARD A. MILLER,
Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/ThirdParty Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ON REMAND
and
KAY CASEY,
Official Reported Version
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
DANIEL SHERRICK, ROY WYSE, and JOYCE
FRANK,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Kelly and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
-1-
In this fraud and misrepresentation case, defendants Helen Dorsey, Pat Choate, and
Edward Miller and third-party plaintiff Kay Casey1 appealed as of right the denial of their
motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of plaintiffs
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) and United Broadcasting Network, Inc. (UBN), and third-party defendants
Daniel Sherrick, Frank Joyce, and Roy Wyse.2 We reversed and remanded. 268 Mich App 313;
708 NW2d 717 (2005). Our Supreme Court reversed that portion of the decision granting a new
trial "for the reasons stated in the partial dissent . . . ." 474 Mich 1097 (2006). Our reversal was
based on a determination that the trial court erred in admitting the Miller divorce hearing
transcripts into evidence because the transcripts were a part of a sealed record. The dissent
argued that reversal was not warranted because (1) the divorce transcripts were not part of the
sealed record and (2) even if the divorce transcripts were a part of the sealed record, the use of
the transcripts constituted unfair surprise only to defense counsel, not to defendant Miller
himself.
On remand, we must determine (1) whether the transcripts were used not as impeachment
evidence but as an "improper assault on Miller's character"; (2) whether the "Harder memos"
were properly admitted; (3) whether a treatise was properly used to impeach defendant's expert,
John Olsen; and (4) whether there was error requiring reversal in a reference during closing
argument to settlement negotiations. We affirm the trial court's decision on each of these issues,
but we remand the case for reinstatement of mediation sanctions pursuant to our Supreme Court's
order.
I. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
Defendants argue that even if this Court were to find that the use of the transcripts did not
violate Judge Ross Campbell's order sealing the transcripts, the manner in which they were used
went so far beyond the bounds of zealous advocacy that a new trial is required. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
The decision whether to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will
not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich
67, 76; 684 NW2d 296 (2004).
B. Analysis
1
We will refer to these parties as "defendants" or "the Choate parties."
2
We will refer to these parties as "plaintiffs."
-2-
The trial court properly allowed the impeachment of Miller's credibility. MRE 607
allows the credibility of any witness to be attacked by any party. MRE 613 acknowledges that a
witness may be asked about prior inconsistent statements. Plaintiffs' counsel questioned Miller
about his job at UBN and asked whether he had ever been fired by the National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) and whether he had a business relationship with Dorsey in the
summer of 1996. Miller responded that he had never been fired by NCMS, had worked for UBN
beginning in April 1996, and had a business relationship with Dorsey during the summer of
1996. Plaintiffs' counsel then introduced the divorce transcripts in order to show that Miller's
testimony during those proceedings was exactly contrary to the responses given at trial during
the present case.
Miller was then given the opportunity to explain the discrepancy. Our Supreme Court
commented on this type of testimony in Ruhala v Roby, 379 Mich 102; 150 NW2d 146, (1967),
when it stated:
"We agree with the view stated in McCormick on Evidence, § 39, p 75:
"'If the prior statement of the witness is contradictory of his present story
on the stand, the opportunity for testing the veracity of the 2 stories by the 2
parties through cross-examination and re-examination is ideal. Too often the
cross-examiner of a dubious witness is faced by a smooth, blank wall. The
witness has been able throughout to present a narrative which may be false, yet is
consistent with itself and offers no foothold for the claimer who would look
beyond. But the witness who has told one story aforetime and another today has
opened the gates to all the vistas of truth which the common-law practice of cross
examination and re-examination was invented to explore. It will go hard, but the
2 questioners will lay bare the sources of the change of face, in forgetfulness,
carelessness, pity, terror or greed, and thus reveal which is the true story and
which the false. It is hard to escape the view that evidence of a previous
inconsistent statement, when the declarant is on the stand to explain it if he can,
has in high degree the safeguards of examined testimony.'" [Id. at 122 (opinion
by Brennan, J.), quoting Schratt v Fila, 371 Mich 238, 245-246; 123 NW2d 780
(l963).]
Thus, the use of the transcripts to impeach Miller's credibility was proper, and the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the transcripts for that purpose.
II. ADMISSION OF THE HARDER MEMOS
A. Standard of Review
The decision whether to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will
not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Craig, supra at 76.
B. Analysis
-3-
The Harder memos were a group of memos written by Charles Harder to Choate and
Miller during the time that UBN began assuming leadership of Harder's radio network. These
memos included many of Harder's complaints about the way the new management, specifically
Choate and Miller, were handling UBN. This information was relevant to defendants' claim of a
breach of fiduciary duty and their allegations that all the financial difficulties at UBN were the
result of plaintiffs' mismanagement.
Plaintiffs sought the admission of these memos to counter testimony from Sherrick and
Miller that Harder believed at the time of trial that plaintiffs were the ones who caused Harder
problems at UBN. Plaintiffs wanted to admit the documents not for the truth of their contents,
but to show that Miller had a motive to get rid of Harder because the memos were derogatory of
Miller. Further, plaintiffs wanted to use the memos to show that it was not plaintiffs with whom
Harder was upset shortly before he left, but Miller and Choate. Finally, plaintiffs wanted to
admit the memos to impeach Miller's testimony that the vast majority of Harder's complaints in
these memos related to problems Harder was having with censorship, when in fact the memos
did not reflect this.
Defendants argued that the memos should not be admissible to show Miller's motivation,
but could be used to rebut Miller's position that most of the memos blamed plaintiffs and
censorship for Harder's problem with UBN. However, defendants asserted that the trial court
should not project images of the memos in the courtroom for the jury to observe, but should
instead ask Miller to review the memos and then question him about whether they contained
references to censorship.
The trial court agreed to admit the Harder memos, stating:
All right. Just a moment. Seems to me that, yesterday, the witness
stated—he was asked in many different ways—that the primary complaint of Mr.
Harder was censorship, and this was reflected in his writings. To that extent, the
Court will allow plaintiff 's attorney to use these documents to impeach him, all
right.
Secondly, as to the state of mind of Mr. Harder as it relates to the issue of
whether he was showing a state of mind that indicated his distress either with the
Choate parties or with the UAW, based on the testimony presented by this
witness, the Court will allow the memos to show that.
With a request from either party, the Court will instruct the jury. I don't
intend to instruct them after or before each memo. I will do it in connection with
all of what's being offered in this line of questioning and instruct them that these
memos are not being offered for the truth of what the person states in the memo
but, rather, to show the state of mind of that person, Mr. Harder. And, secondly,
to the extent they're being offered for another purpose, it's to address the
statements made by this witness in court yesterday.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court should decline to review defendants' argument that the
memos were improperly admitted under MRE 803(3), the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay
-4-
rule, because defendants failed to present the arguments at trial that they now assert on appeal:
(1) that the trial court failed to determine that Harder's state of mind was at issue and (2) that the
memos were more prejudicial than probative under MRE 403. After a lengthy discussion of
whether the Harder memos should be admitted, the trial court concluded by stating:
Now, what I'd like to do is bring the jury out. And I know there may be
other objections, but this has been resolved, right? I don't want to hear more
interruptions. And, certainly, for the record, you have preserved any and all
objections . . . you have to any of these memos, okay.
In light of the trial court's resolution of this matter, we find that defendants' arguments were
preserved. MRE 103(a) states in relevant part, "Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the
record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an
objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal." Thus, any issue relating to
the admission of the Harder memos is properly before this Court.
Plaintiffs also assert that this Court should decline to review defendants' argument that
the memos did not reflect Harder's state of mind because plaintiffs claim that defendants
contributed to the admission of these statements through negligent inaction. Plaintiffs argue that
defendants never made specific objections to any particular memo as not reflecting Harder's state
of mind and failed to indicate which parts of any memo should be removed. This panel reviewed
the discourse between the attorneys and the trial court on this matter, and it appears that defense
counsel informed the trial court that he believed there were very few instances in the Harder
memos in which Harder actually expressed a state of mind. Defense counsel gave an example: "I
am heartsick. I am tired." Defense counsel announced that because Harder wrote in such a
prolific manner, defendants did not think the memos should be admitted. At that point, the trial
court changed the subject to the matter of impeachment. Therefore, we reject plaintiffs'
contention that this Court should decline to review this issue because the record reflects that
defendants did preserve this issue and did object to the admission of all but a few very specific
statements.
We now analyze the three grounds on which the trial court admitted the Harder memos:
(1) to rebut Miller's testimony, (2) to show Harder's state of mind, and (3) to show that Miller
had a motive for trying to "get rid of" Harder.
Rebuttal of Miller's Testimony
Defendants argue that the Harder memos were not properly used to impeach Miller's
assertions that the memos contained mainly complaints about plaintiffs' censorship. Defendants
assert in their brief on appeal, and they argued at trial, that it might have been proper for
plaintiffs to show a memo to Miller, ask if there was anything in the memo regarding censorship,
and then, in the event Miller's testimony did not properly reflect the content of the particular
memo, publish the part of the memo that was impeaching. Defendants cite no legal authority for
this proposed method. However, this argument is grounded in MRE 608(b), which prohibits
impeachment of a witness on collateral matters.
-5-
In People v Spanke, 254 Mich App 642, 644-645; 658 NW2d 504 (2003), citing People v
Vasher, 449 Mich 494, 504; 537 NW2d 168 (1995), this Court stated that although MRE 608(b)
generally prohibits impeachment of a witness by extrinsic evidence regarding collateral,
irrelevant, or immaterial matters, a party may introduce rebuttal evidence to contradict the
answers elicited from a witness on cross-examination regarding matters germane to the issue if
the rebuttal evidence is narrowly focused on refuting the witness's statements. In this instance,
because the rebuttal evidence in this case refuted or weakened testimony on a material,
substantive issue in the case—whether Harder left the radio station because of disagreements
with plaintiffs or defendants—it was not subject to exclusion under MRE 608(b).
Further, defendants assert that certain memos were not impeaching at all. For example,
they note that Miller testified that Harder opposed moving the radio operations to Lake City,
Florida. On the next day of testimony, plaintiffs introduced a memo regarding that very issue
that was consistent with Miller's testimony. Therefore, defendants argue, this could not have
been impeachment evidence. The testimony being impeached, however, was Miller's broad
assertion that the memos mainly contained Harder's complaints about plaintiffs' censorship.
Thus, the memo about Harder's opposition to a move was introduced to show another memo in
which Harder was not complaining about censorship. The memo impeached Miller not by what
it did contain, but by its absence of any reference to censorship by plaintiffs.
The Harder memos were offered to impeach Miller and to prove that he was testifying
untruthfully about the content of the memos. They were not admitted to prove the truth of their
contents. Out-of-court statements not offered for the truth of the matter asserted do not
constitute inadmissible hearsay under MRE 801(c).
Further, the memos were not more prejudicial than probative. MRE 403 allows the trial
court to exclude evidence that is more prejudicial than probative. The memos were probative of
Miller's contention that they contained mainly references to censorship, and, as will be discussed
later, they were probative of Miller's motive to get rid of Harder. Therefore, we conclude that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Harder memos for the purpose of
impeaching Miller.
Harder's State of Mind
Next, defendants argue that the trial court improperly admitted the Harder memos under
MRE 803(3) to prove Harder's state of mind. MRE 803(3) excepts from the rule against hearsay
"[a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical
condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not
including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed . . . ."
Defendants argue that the trial court should have excluded the evidence because Harder's
state of mind was not relevant. Before a statement may be admitted under MRE 803(3), the trial
court must first determine that the declarant's state of mind is a relevant issue. People v DeWitt,
173 Mich App 261, 269; 433 NW2d 325 (1988). Plaintiffs contend that defendants are the ones
who placed Harder's state of mind at issue in their opening arguments. The transcripts do reflect
that defense counsel made the following remarks during opening statements:
-6-
Oh, sure, [plaintiffs] had the right to have input on content, they had—
they used it to censure [sic] the airways, they used it to sensor [sic] Chuck Harder
....
* * *
The—and they intended and did sensor [sic] and impact Chuck Harder's
on-air performance. It is incorrect to suggest that we caused the fight with
Harder. What actually happened, the evidence is going to show you, is that our
money partner to [sic] UAW turned the heat up on us right from the get go. Get
him under control or he's gone and our people foolishly, looking back on it,
hindsight is 20/20, went along and tried to carry it out as best they could. And to
suggest otherwise that somehow we cared about Chuck Harder, as opposed to
them, let's just say the evidence will not support that.
In 1996, this is in the summer as I recall it, this is—in 1996 there was to
be a meeting and this is at this time. When you heard this morning, hey, they
didn't have nothing to do with Harder, you know, the problems with Harder, it's
not our fault. They didn't care about Harder, our fault. . . .
* * *
The problem was that we believe that the evidence will demonstrate that
[plaintiffs] intended Harder off the air at some point. Oh, not in the beginning,
they needed him for a little bit because he still had those affiliates. But over time
Harder was toast from the minute this was signed and they intended that to
happen in due course.
And the way they did it was they took it over.
Additionally, during defendants' cross-examination of Sherrick, defendants inquired about
Harder's views on the problems with the network. Defendants cannot complain about the
introduction of evidence if they made the evidence relevant by raising the issue at trial. See
People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 377-378; 624 NW2d 227 (2001). Here defendants
introduced the issue of which party caused Harder to leave the station. Therefore, defendants'
assertion that Harder's state of mind was not relevant is without merit.
Next, defendants assert that even if Harder's state of mind were relevant, the memos do
not reflect his state of mind. Defendants assert that a court may admit a part of a statement that
expresses the declarant's state of mind, but it should exclude the part of the statement that
explains the state of mind. The only Michigan case defendants cite is Duke v American Olean
Tile Co, 155 Mich App 555; 400 NW2d 677 (1986). In Duke, a slip and fall case, the defendant
testified that he "stopped in for a cup of coffee, the floor was wet as he entered the door as his
feet went out from under him, and he just couldn't control his fall." Id. at 571. The testimony
was admitted under MRE 803(3); however, this Court found that only the defendant's later
statement to hospital personnel that he was in pain was admissible under MRE 803(3) and not his
explanation of the circumstances of the accident. The Court then found that there was no error
-7-
because the statement was admissible under MRE 803(4) (statements made for purposes of
medical treatment).
Harder did make several comments that would be admissible under MRE 803(3), such as
"I am heartsick" and "I am very upset and angry." However, the scope of MRE 803(3) is very
narrow and does not allow the admission of any statements explaining the declarant's state of
mind. Therefore, the admission of the memos in their entirety for the purpose of proving
Harder's state of mind was an abuse of discretion.
Miller's Motive
Next, defendants argue that the Harder memos should not have been admitted for the
purpose of proving Miller's motive. Plaintiffs theorize that the memos reveal animosity between
Harder and Miller and that the nature of the memos indicates that Miller had a motive for trying
to force Harder to leave the radio station. Plaintiffs assert that the memos demonstrate that
Harder was very upset and angry with Miller and made many complaints about his actions.
Plaintiffs believe that the natural response of anyone in Miller's position, upon reading the
memos, would be to feel anger toward Harder and to view him as a serious problem. Plaintiffs
contend that the memos show that Miller's testimony that he was never angry with Harder about
his complaints was simply not credible. Plaintiffs posit this theory as an alternative to
defendants' theory that plaintiffs were the ones who forced Harder to leave the station by their
censorship.
Defendants argue that there is nothing in the Harder memos concerning Miller's reaction
to anything Harder wrote. Defendants state that Miller testified that the memos did not make
him angry and that mere inferences that such memos "might" make "someone" unhappy or angry
were not enough to allow the admission of the memos.
Plaintiffs cite People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 449-450; 537 NW2d 577 (1995), in
support of their argument that the memos were properly admitted to show the effect they had on
Miller. In Fisher, a case in which a husband murdered his wife, our Supreme Court upheld the
trial court's ruling that "'[n]on-hearsay circumstantial evidence as to the existence and extent of
discord shall be admitted when in the form of statements that the victim made reasonably in
point of time before her demise . . . .'" Id. at 448-449. Our Supreme Court concluded that marital
discord, motive, and premeditation were all at issue and that the statements of the victim-wife
were admissible to show the effect they had on the defendant-husband. Our Supreme Court
concluded that this testimony did not offend the hearsay rule because it does not constitute
hearsay, and offered the following support for its decision:
"Wherever an utterance is offered [into] evidence [for] the state of mind
which ensued in another person in consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that
no assertive or testimonial use is sought to be made of it, and the utterance is
therefore admissible, so far as the hearsay rule is concerned. [6 Wigmore,
Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 1789, p 314. Emphasis added.]"
Likewise, in 4 Weinstein, Evidence, ¶ 801(c)[01], pp 801-94 to 801-96:
-8-
"An utterance or a writing may be admitted to show the effect on the
hearer or reader when this effect is relevant. The policies underlying the hearsay
rule do not apply because the utterance is not being offered to prove the truth or
falsity of the matter asserted." [Id. at 449-450.]
Here, as in Fisher, we have a situation in which statements made by an individual may be
relevant to an ultimate issue. Defendants' argument that the memos are inadmissible because
Miller denied that he felt anger toward Harder is unpersuasive. Miller's reaction to the Harder
memos is relevant to defendants' assertion that plaintiffs were the ones who forced Harder out of
the radio station. The jury could choose to believe or not believe Miller's contentions that the
memos did not make him angry.
Restriction in Cross-Examination
Finally, defendants also argue that they were erroneously restricted in their cross
examination of Harder's attorney, Robert Persante, by the trial court. Defendants assert that the
jury should have been allowed to hear testimony from Persante about Harder's present day
feelings toward plaintiffs. Both parties acknowledge that, by the time of trial, Harder had
become disenchanted with plaintiffs. He felt that he should have received a bigger settlement
upon leaving the radio station, which caused him to file his lawsuit.
Defendants attempted to show on cross-examination of Miller that, at the time of trial,
Harder considered his "heartsickness" to be the fault of the UAW and that he was mistaken in
1996 about who was causing his problems. The trial court ruled that defendants would not be
permitted to examine Miller about the current state of his relationship with Harder. MRE 402
generally provides that all relevant evidence is admissible and that evidence that is not relevant is
not admissible. Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable
than it would be without the evidence." MRE 401. Harder's relationship with Miller at the time
of trial was not relevant to his reasons for leaving the radio station in 1996. That Harder may
now have a different perspective on the events that led to his leaving the station in 1996 does not
make it more or less probable that plaintiffs caused him to leave, as defendants contend, or that
defendants caused him to leave, as plaintiffs contend.
Additionally, Harder's present feelings toward plaintiffs are lacking in trustworthiness
given the litigation between Harder and plaintiffs. As our Supreme Court recently stated in
People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 290; 662 NW2d 12 (2003), in order to be admissible under the
exception found in MRE 803(24), "a hearsay statement must: (1) demonstrate circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the categorical exceptions, (2) be relevant to a
material fact, (3) be the most probative evidence of that fact reasonably available, and (4) serve
the interests of justice by its admission." There is no complete list of factors to consider when
determining whether a statement has "'"particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."'" Id. at 291
(citations omitted). Instead, a court must examine the "totality of the circumstances" and
"consider all factors that add to or detract from the statement's reliability." Id. at 291-292.
However, our Supreme Court did refer to the Federal Rules of Evidence Manual and stated that
the factors contained in it, while not all-inclusive, provided general guidelines for courts. This
list of factors includes whether the statement appears to have been made in anticipation of
-9-
litigation and is favorable to the person who made or prepared the statement. Id. at 291 n 11.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in restricting defendants' cross-examination of Miller and
Persante on the subject of Harder's current feelings toward plaintiffs.
C. Conclusion
That our rules of evidence preclude the use of evidence for one purpose simply does not
render the evidence inadmissible for other purposes. Rather, the evidence is admissible for a
proper purpose, subject to a limiting instruction under MRE 105.3 People v Sabin (After
Remand), 463 Mich 43, 56; 614 NW2d 888 (2000). The Harder memos were properly
admissible for the purpose of impeaching Miller and to demonstrate the effect they may have had
on Miller; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the memos, even though it
improperly admitted the memos for the purpose of demonstrating Harder's state of mind.
III. EXPERT IMPEACHMENT
A. Standard of Review
At trial, defense counsel failed to object to the question posed to its expert witness;
therefore, this issue is not properly preserved for appeal. However, "this Court may consider
unpreserved issues where failure to do so would result in manifest injustice." People v Griffin,
235 Mich App 27, 44; 597 NW2d 176 (1999), citing People v Metzler, 193 Mich App 541, 548;
484 NW2d 695 (1992). In this case, defense counsel had no reasonable way to know when it
was asked that the question posed contained any error; therefore, this Court will review this
issue.
B. Analysis
While cross-examining defendants' expert witness, John Olson, plaintiffs' attorney asked:
Q. Right. Now, here's a—the Delaware Supreme Court says, in a case
called Nixon v Blackwell [626 A2d 1366] from 1993, "Statutory closed
corporations—" that's checking the box or filling it out, right?
A. Right.
Q. ". . . have not found particular favor with practitioners. Practitioners
have, for the most part, viewed the complex statutory provisions underlying the
purportedly simplified operational procedures for close corporations as legal
quicksand of uncertain depth and have adopted the view that the objectives sought
3
Here the trial court gave a limiting instruction when the questioning on the Harder memos
began. The jury was told that "it's important for you to understand to not consider them [the
memos] for their truth." Further, at the end of the trial, the trial court reminded the jury to
consider evidence that was admitted for a limited purpose only for that purpose.
-10-
by the sub chapter [sic] are achievable for their clients with considerably less
uncertainty by cloaking a conventionally created corporation with the panoply of
charter provisions, transfer restrictions[,] . . . by-laws, stockholders' agreements[,]
buy-sell arrangements, irrevocable proxies, [voting] trusts, or other contractual
mechanisms which were and remain the traditional method for accomplishing the
goals sought by the closed corporations provisions." [Plaintiffs' counsel's
commentary while reading this quote has been omitted.]
This sole question, defendants contend, warrants a new trial because the language that plaintiffs'
counsel attributed to the Delaware Supreme Court was actually from a treatise the court had cited
and was the opposite of the court's actual holding in that case. Defendants fear that the jury
would view Mr. Olson as being wrong if his opinion were seen as being at odds with the
Delaware Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs point to the fact that Olson was neither shaken nor persuaded by counsel's
question:
Q. . . . In other words, sir, the Delaware Supreme Court still feels you can
have a closed corporation without checking the box, isn't that so?
A. No, that's not what the court said.
Q. No, not at all—
A. What the court said was that close corporations—that what I think I
said in my testimony—work in a limited number of circumstances because they
kind of assume that this corporation is never going to grow. It may be better—
and it's often the practice—my practice, too—to use other mechanisms in the
early years of the corporation, as you say as was done here, like shareholders'
agreements and super-majority provisions, to provide various degrees of control
until the corporation reaches a state where it's ready to move on to another status.
But that doesn't make it a close corporation. I'm not sure what the significance is
of the label.
Olson's answer indicated that he was quite familiar with this case, and he fully and articulately
disagreed with plaintiffs' counsel. Furthermore, the jury was instructed that "[e]vidence consists
of the sworn testimony of the witnesses . . . . Questions which the attorneys ask the witness are
not themselves evidence, it is the answers which provide the evidence." (Emphasis added.)
In addition, defendants do not cite for this Court a single case, statute, or rule, or any
other legal authority, to support their proposition. Defendants' witness testified about Delaware
law; plaintiffs' lawyer was attempting to impeach him. The jury was given an instruction
concerning what is and is not evidence; no objections were raised at trial, and defendants point to
no law to support warranting a new trial. Therefore, defendants' argument on this issue fails.
IV. REFERENCE TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
-11-
Defendants failed to object to the alleged misconduct when it occurred and instead waited
until the end of closing arguments. To preserve most issues, a party must object below. Tringali
v Lal, 164 Mich App 299, 306; 416 NW2d 117 (1987). Objections must be timely. See Klapp v
United Ins Group Agency, Inc (On Remand), 259 Mich App 467, 475; 674 NW2d 736 (2003). A
party opposing the admission of evidence must have timely objected at trial and specified the
same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal. MRE 103(a)(1); see also People v Grant,
445 Mich 535, 546; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). To be timely, an objection should be interposed
between the question and the answer. See Carreras v Honeggers & Co, Inc, 68 Mich App 716,
722; 244 NW2d 10 (1976). Here, counsel failed to timely object; thus, this issue is not properly
preserved for appellate review.
Affirmed. But we remand for reinstatement of the mediation sanctions pursuant to our
Supreme Court's order. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Bill Schuette
-12-
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.