AARON LYONS V BERNICE COATES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
AARON LYONS, a Minor, by his Conservator,
CYNTHIA CHANDANAIS,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 242666
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 01-070792-NO
BERNICE COATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order denying his motion for relief from
judgment. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. The plaintiff moved
to set aside the order granting the motion, contending that his attorney never received notice of
the motion or the hearing date. The trial court found that service was made and denied the
motion. The trial court’s ruling on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Jones v Enertel, Inc, 254 Mich App 432, 434; 656 NW2d 870 (2002).
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order on
the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a). A
motion on such grounds is limited to extraordinary circumstances where the failure to set aside
the order will result in substantial injustice. Lark v Detroit Edison Co, 99 Mich App 280, 283;
297 NW2d 653 (1980). A showing that a party lacked notice of the hearing of a motion because
the documents were lost in the mail may be grounds for relief. Cf. Kuikstra v Cheers Good Time
Saloons, Inc, 187 Mich App 699, 703; 468 NW2d 533 (1991), rev’d in part on other grounds 441
Mich 851 (1992); Reno v Gale, 165 Mich App 86, 94-95; 418 NW2d 434 (1987).
A copy of a motion must be delivered to a party’s attorney or sent to him at his last
known business address by first class mail. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. MCR
2.108(C)(3). The proof of service for the motion for summary disposition shows that the motion
and notice of hearing were sent to plaintiff’s counsel’s business address by first class mail on
May 7, 2002. Documents properly addressed and placed in the mail are presumed to reach their
destination. Crawford v Michigan, 208 Mich App 117, 121; 527 NW2d 30 (1994). “This
-1-
presumption may be rebutted by evidence, but whether it was is a question for the trier of fact.”
Stacey v Sankovich, 19 Mich App 688, 694; 173 NW2d 225 (1969). Plaintiff denied receipt of
the papers but presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt. The mere denial of
service is insufficient to rebut the presumption. Cf. Ins Co of North America v Issett, 84 Mich
App 45, 49; 269 NW2d 301 (1978); James v James, 57 Mich App 452, 454; 225 NW2d 804 (1975).
Under the circumstances, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiff’s motion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
