FINDLING LAW FIRM PLC V ANDRE DUPERRY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
FINDLING LAW FIRM, PLC,
UNPUBLISHED
January 13, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
ANDRE DUPERRY, Personal Representative of
the Estate of Nathaniel DuPerry, Jr., Deceased,
No. 243835
Wayne Probate Court
LC No. 2000-621192-DE
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff, The Findling Law Firm, PLC, appeals as of right the dismissal of this action to
collect attorney fees allegedly owing from defendant estate. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
At the September 3, 2002, pretrial conference, the probate court sua sponte dismissed this
action without explanation or notice. On the first page of plaintiff’s complaint, the following is
handwritten:
Sep 3, 2002 (in chambers) dis-Dismissed by court. Parties directed to
circuit court. Martin T. Maher per MTM
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the dismissal, without notice or explanation by the
probate court, violates our court rules, including MCR 2.504. We agree. Further, we note that
“Generally, due process in civil cases requires notice of the nature of the proceeding” being
scheduled. Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 504; 536 NW2d 280 (1995). “In any
proceeding involving notice, due process requires that the notice given be reasonably calculated,
under all the circumstances, to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id. at 504.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-1-
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.
