misnomer doctrine in Michigan

2023The misnomer doctrine applies only to correct inconsequential deficiencies or technicalities in the naming of parties, for example, “ ‘[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name . . . .’ ” Wells v Detroit News, Inc, 360 Mich 634, 641 ; 104 NW2d 767 (1960), quoting Daly v Blair, 183 Mich 351, 353 ; 150 NW 134 (1914); see also Detroit Independent Sprinkler Co v Plywood Prods Corp, 311 Mich 226, 232 ; 18 NW2d 387 (1945) (allowing an amendment to correct the designation of the named plaintiff from “corpora

2023The misnomer doctrine applies only to correct inconsequential deficiencies or technicalities in the naming of parties, for example, “ ‘[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name . . . .’ ” Wells v Detroit News, Inc, 360 Mich 634, 641 ; 104 NW2d 767 (1960), quoting Daly v Blair, 183 Mich 351, 353 ; 150 NW 134 (1914); see also Detroit Independent Sprinkler Co v Plywood Prods Corp, 311 Mich 226, 232 ; 18 NW2d 387 (1945) (allowing an amendment to correct the designation of the named plaintiff from “corpora

2026Generally, the misnomer of a party “is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.” Salem Springs, LLC v Salem Twp, 312 Mich App 210, 224-225 ; 880 NW2d 793 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023See Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 106-108 ; 730 NW2d 462 (2007); Salem Springs, LLC v Salem Twp, 312 Mich App 210, 222-224 ; 880 NW2d 793 (2015).

2018With respect to corporation by estoppel, in Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 152-153 ; 792 NW2d 749 (2010), this Court explained: Corporation by estoppel . . . is an equitable remedy and does not concern legal status.

2018With respect to corporation by estoppel, in Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 152-153 ; 792 NW2d 749 (2010), this Court explained: Corporation by estoppel . . . is an equitable remedy and does not concern legal status.

2018The misnomer doctrine provides that “[t]he misnomer of a person or corporation in a written instrument will not defeat a recovery thereon if the identity sufficiently appears from the name employed in the writing or is satisfactorily established by proof.” PIM, Inc v Steinbichler Optical Techs USA, Inc, 468 Mich 896 ; 660 NW2d 73 (2003).

2018The misnomer doctrine provides that “[t]he misnomer of a person or corporation in a written instrument will not defeat a recovery thereon if the identity sufficiently appears from the name employed in the writing or is satisfactorily established by proof.” PIM, Inc v Steinbichler Optical Techs USA, Inc, 468 Mich 896 ; 660 NW2d 73 (2003).

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2025Furthermore, the Court recognized authority from this Court that holding that “the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint under MCR 2.118(D), in which they sought to add assignments from the patient to the plaintiff medical providers, amounted to a motion to supplement the pleadings under MCR 2.118(E),” which “barred the plaintiffs from recovery because a supplemental pleading does not relate back to the original complaint date and the plaintiffs’ claims were filed past the one-year-back date.” Id. at ___; slip op at 25-26, citing Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324

2025Id. at ___; slip op at 25. “[T]he relation-back doctrine does not apply to the addition -16- of new parties,” but “the misnomer doctrine . . . allows for the correction of inconsequential deficiencies or technicalities in the naming of parties[.]” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted; second alteration in original).

2025Id. at ___; slip op at 25. “[T]he relation-back doctrine does not apply to the addition -16- of new parties,” but “the misnomer doctrine . . . allows for the correction of inconsequential deficiencies or technicalities in the naming of parties[.]” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted; second alteration in original).

2025Furthermore, the Court recognized authority from this Court that holding that “the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint under MCR 2.118(D), in which they sought to add assignments from the patient to the plaintiff medical providers, amounted to a motion to supplement the pleadings under MCR 2.118(E),” which “barred the plaintiffs from recovery because a supplemental pleading does not relate back to the original complaint date and the plaintiffs’ claims were filed past the one-year-back date.” Id. at ___; slip op at 25-26, citing Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324

2023This Court similarly reasoned in Miszewski v Knauf Constr, Inc, 138 Mich App 312, 316 ; 454 NW2d 253 (1990), that “where the amendment of pleadings is done merely to correct a prior error in naming the proper party to the lawsuit, and the defendants have not been denied notice of the action due to this misnomer, the amendments do relate back to the date of the original pleading.” Defendants had more than adequate notice of the action and the claims raised.

2023This Court similarly reasoned in Miszewski v Knauf Constr, Inc, 138 Mich App 312, 316 ; 454 NW2d 253 (1990), that “where the amendment of pleadings is done merely to correct a prior error in naming the proper party to the lawsuit, and the defendants have not been denied notice of the action due to this misnomer, the amendments do relate back to the date of the original pleading.” Defendants had more than adequate notice of the action and the claims raised.

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2014LEGAL STANDARDS The misnomer doctrine provides that “[w]here the right corporation has been sued by the wrong name, and service has been made upon the right party, although by a wrong name, an amendment substituting the true name of the corporation may be permitted.”5 It complements the rule that courts must “disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”6 “[A] misnomer of a plaintiff or defendant is amendable unless the amendment is such as to effect an entire change of parties.”7 But the misnomer doctrine does 1 Michigan Props, LL

2007See Voigt Brewery [Brewing] Co. v. Pacifico, 139 Mich. 284, 286 , 102 N.W. 739 (1905); Rheaume v. Vandenberg, 232 Mich.App. 417 , 423 n. 2, 591 N.W.2d 331 (1998). 1 See 11 USC 541; 11 USC 323; [ In re Cottrell ], 876 F.2d 540 (C.A.6, 1989).

2007See Voigt Brewery Co v Pacifico, 139 Mich 284, 286 ; 102 NW 739 (1905); Rheaume v Vandenberg, 232 Mich App 417 , 423 n 2; 591 NW2d 331 (1998).

2007See Voigt Brewery Co v Pacifico, 139 Mich 284, 286 ; 102 NW 739 (1905); Rheaume v Vandenberg, 232 Mich App 417 , 423 n 2; 591 NW2d 331 (1998).