MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK V MARTIN M YOUNCEAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK, formerly known as
MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT,
June 9, 1998
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-638418-NZ
MARTIN M. YOUNCE,
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Kelly and Smolenski, JJ.
Defendant, Martin M. Younce, appeals as of right from an order granting plaintiff, Michigan
National Bank f/k/a Michigan National Bank of Detroit’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to
MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
On August 27, 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for renewal of judgment
pursuant to MCL 600.5809; MSA 27A.5809, to renew a judgment awarded to Michigan National
Bank of Detroit on May 1, 1987, in the amount of $140,000. The judgment, entered by Wayne Circuit
Court Judge Roland L. Olzark, stated that defendant, Richard P. Dietrich, and World of Ruttman, Inc.,
d/b/a Motorcity Honda, were jointly and severally liable to Michigan National Bank of Detroit.
Defendant first argues on appeal that plaintiff was not a party to the 1987 judgment, and
therefore cannot renew the judgment. We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's order granting
summary disposition de novo to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. First Security v Aitken, 226 Mich App 291, 304; 573 NW2d 307 (1997).
To satisfy its burden for a motion for summary disposition, the moving party must specifically
identify the issues on which there are no disputed facts, and support its position with affidavits,
depositions, or other documentary evidence. Munson Medical Ctr v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 218 Mich
App 375, 386; 554 NW2d 49 (1996). The party opposing the motion then bears the burden of
showing by evidentiary materials that a dispute exists regarding a genuine issue of material fact.
During the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff presented an affidavit
to the trial court. The affidavit was given by Bruce Lenz, one of plaintiff’s officers. Lenz stated that he
was familiar with the merger of Michigan National Bank of Detroit into plaintiff. Lenz also stated that
pursuant to the merger agreement, plaintiff was the successor in interest to all of Michigan National
Bank of Detroit’s liabilities and assets including the judgment at issue in this matter, and that the
judgment had not been assigned or transferred to any third parties. Once plaintiff put forth this affidavit,
the burden was then on defendant to show by evidentiary materials that a dispute existed regarding the
issue of whether plaintiff was the successor in interest to Michigan National Bank of Detroit’s liabilities
and assets. Munson, supra, 218 Mich App 386. Defendant put forth no evidentiary materials
regarding this issue. Therefore, the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary
Defendant’s other issue on appeal is that plaintiff failed to join necessary parties to the action.
We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's order granting summary disposition de novo to
determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First Security, supra,
226 Mich App 304.
The courts of this state have held that when an award is joint and several, a plaintiff may pursue
the defendants in separate actions. A plaintiff is permitted to pursue defendants jointly or severally at his
election, but may recover only one satisfaction. See generally Grand Blanc Cement v INA, 225 Mich
App 138, 150-151; 571 NW2d 221 (1997); Kaminski v Newton, 176 Mich App 326, 328; 438
NW2d 915 (1989). In the underlying action, plaintiff’s judgment was awarded jointly and severally. In
the present action, plaintiffs have elected to renew the judgment against only defendant. As the
judgment plaintiff wishes to renew calls for a joint and several award, we hold that plaintiff is entitled to
renew the judgment against any of the parties it chooses. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting
plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski