M D CONSTRUCTION INC V DENNIS WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
M. D. CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
November 12, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. No.
209646
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-645080 CK
DENNIS WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
CITY OF DETROIT, WAYNE COUNTY,
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, and
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES,
Defendants.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Doctoroff and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a default judgment in favor of plaintiff in this action for
breach of contract. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the default
judgment. The ruling on a motion to set aside a default judgment is entrusted to the discretion of the trial
court. Unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, the trial court’s ruling will not be set aside.
Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No.
111783, issued 10/12/99), slip op pp 7-8. An abuse of discretion involves more than a difference in
judicial opinion. Such an abuse exists only when the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact
and logic that it evidences perversity of will, the defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias
rather than the exercise of discretion. Id. at 8.
Pursuant to MCR 2.603(D)(1), a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must show good
cause and file an affidavit of facts showing a meritorious defense. For the purpose of applying MCR
-1
2.603(D), good cause means (1) a substantial defect or irregularity in the proceedings on which the
default is based; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the requirements that created the
default; or (3) some other reason showing that manifest injustice would result if the default were allowed
to stand. Huggins v MIC General Ins Corp, 228 Mich App 84, 87; 578 NW2d 326 (1998).
Defendant contends that the fact that he did not have notice of either his attorney’s withdrawal
as counsel or the correct trial date constitute good cause for setting aside the default judgment. We
disagree. The trial court entered the default judgment because defendant and his new counsel were
present on the trial date but left without explanation before proceedings began. The failure of an
attorney or a defendant to appear for a scheduled trial is a sufficient ground for the entry of a default
judgment. See MCR 2.603(B)(1)(d); Comstock Construction Co v LHG Investment Co, 126 Mich
App 408, 411; 337 NW2d 82 (1983). Defendant has proffered no reason for his failure to appear at
trial. Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
