substantive merits claim in Michigan

2025“MRE 408 has been found to apply to settlements by parties to a suit with nonparties, at least to the extent of using the settlement as proof of liability of the settling party.” Chouman, 293 Mich App at 438 . “[B]ecause not only are voluntary and freely-negotiated compromises encouraged, settlements may be motivated by a great many possible considerations unrelated to the substantive merits of a claim.” Id.

2025“MRE 408 has been found to apply to settlements by parties to a suit with nonparties, at least to the extent of using the settlement as proof of liability of the settling party.” Chouman, 293 Mich App at 438 . “[B]ecause not only are voluntary and freely-negotiated compromises encouraged, settlements may be motivated by a great many possible considerations unrelated to the substantive merits of a claim.” Id.

2023“If a trial court denies a motion to amend, it should specifically state on the record the reasons for its decision.” Weymers, 454 Mich at 659 .

2018“If a trial court denies a motion to amend, it should specifically state on the record the reasons for its decision.” Weymers, 454 Mich at 659 .

2016“An amendment is futile where, ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Formall, Inc v Cmty Nat’l Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 783 ; 421 NW2d 289 (1988).

2016“An amendment is futile where, ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Formall, Inc v Cmty Nat’l Bank of Pontiac, 166 Mich App 772, 783 ; 421 NW2d 289 (1988).

2020Cf. Traver Lakes Cmty Maint Ass’n v Douglas Co, 224 Mich App at 344 . -8- “An amendment is futile where, ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Gonyea v Motor Parts Fed Credit Union, 192 Mich App 74, 78 ; 480 NW2d 297 (1991).

2020Cf. Traver Lakes Cmty Maint Ass’n v Douglas Co, 224 Mich App at 344 . -8- “An amendment is futile where, ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Gonyea v Motor Parts Fed Credit Union, 192 Mich App 74, 78 ; 480 NW2d 297 (1991).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

1986In discussing the futility of amendment as a reason for denying the motion, the Fyke Court stated: On a motion to amend, a court should ignore the substantive merits of a claim or defense unless it is legally insufficient on its face and, thus, as *353 expressed in Foman v Davis, supra, it would be "futile” to allow the amendment. [ 390 Mich 660 .] It appears from the lower court record that Judge Dingeman denied plaintiffs motion to amend because he believed the defendant would be prejudiced if an adjournment of trial court not be obtained.

1977In Fyke & Sons, supra, at 660, the Supreme Court noted: "On a motion to amend, a court should ignore the substantive merits of a claim or defense unless it is legally insufficient on its face and, thus, as expressed in Foman v Davis [ 371 US 178 ; 83 S Ct 227 ; 9 L Ed 2d 222 (1962)], supra, it would be 'futile’ to allow the amendment.

2025A motion for leave to amend should be denied only for the following particularized reasons: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or (5) futility of the amendment. [Lane v KinderCare Learning Ctrs, Inc., 231 Mich App 689, 697 ; 588 NW2d 715 (1998).] Amendment of a complaint is futile “if (1) ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face; (2) it merely restates

2025A motion for leave to amend should be denied only for the following particularized reasons: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, or (5) futility of the amendment. [Lane v KinderCare Learning Ctrs, Inc., 231 Mich App 689, 697 ; 588 NW2d 715 (1998).] Amendment of a complaint is futile “if (1) ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face; (2) it merely restates

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2022A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc, 471 Mich 59 -60; 684 NW2d 320 (2004), or when the undisputed facts establish that summary -16- disposition would be appropriate, Nowacki v State Employees’ Retirement Sys, 485 Mich 1037, 1037 ; 776 NW2d 911 (2010).

2021Defendant is correct that generally an amendment is deemed futile when, “ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Early Detection Center, PC v New York Life Ins Co, 157 Mich App 618, 625 ; 403 NW2d 830 (1986).

2021Defendant is correct that generally an amendment is deemed futile when, “ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Early Detection Center, PC v New York Life Ins Co, 157 Mich App 618, 625 ; 403 NW2d 830 (1986).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

2018Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 139 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), citing McNees v Cedar Springs Stamping Co, 184 Mich App 101, 103 ; 457 NW2d 68 (1990).

2025“A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, or when the undisputed facts establish that summary disposition would be appropriate.” Id. (citations omitted). 12 After the jury was excused for the day, plaintiff’s counsel noted for the record that he objected to admission of testimony that plaintiff used medical marijuana, but the trial court stated that “it’s a fact that people use marijuana and they’re [sic] derivatives for pain,

2025“A proposed amendment is also futile if summary disposition would be appropriately granted regarding the new claims, either when a party has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding an element, or when the undisputed facts establish that summary disposition would be appropriate.” Id. (citations omitted). 12 After the jury was excused for the day, plaintiff’s counsel noted for the record that he objected to admission of testimony that plaintiff used medical marijuana, but the trial court stated that “it’s a fact that people use marijuana and they’re [sic] derivatives for pain,

2024“Prejudice to a party that will justify denial of leave to amend is prejudice that arises when the amendment would prevent the party from having a fair trial.” Sands Appliance Servs, Inc v Wilson, 463 Mich 231 , 239 n 6; 615 NW2d 241 (2000).

2024“Prejudice to a party that will justify denial of leave to amend is prejudice that arises when the amendment would prevent the party from having a fair trial.” Sands Appliance Servs, Inc v Wilson, 463 Mich 231 , 239 n 6; 615 NW2d 241 (2000).

2021In PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Servs, 270 Mich App 110, 143 ; 715 NW2d 398 (2006) (citations omitted), we summarized three ways an amendment can be futile: “(1) ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face, (2) it merely restates allegations already made; or (3) it adds a claim over which the court lacks jurisdiction.” Put another way, “An amendment is futile if it merely restates the allegations already made or adds allegations that still fail to state a claim.” Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 209 ; 920 NW2d 14

2021In Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547, 571-572 ; 817 NW2d 562 (2012), the Michigan Supreme Court explained the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation as follows: (1) the defendant made a material representation, (2) it was false, (3) the defendant knew it was false when made, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion, (4) it was made with the intention to induce reliance by the plaintiff, (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon it, and (6) the plaintiff thereby suffered injury.

2021In PT Today, Inc v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Servs, 270 Mich App 110, 143 ; 715 NW2d 398 (2006) (citations omitted), we summarized three ways an amendment can be futile: “(1) ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face, (2) it merely restates allegations already made; or (3) it adds a claim over which the court lacks jurisdiction.” Put another way, “An amendment is futile if it merely restates the allegations already made or adds allegations that still fail to state a claim.” Shah v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182, 209 ; 920 NW2d 14

2020Cf. Traver Lakes Cmty Maint Ass’n v Douglas Co, 224 Mich App at 344 . -8- “An amendment is futile where, ignoring the substantive merits of the claim, it is legally insufficient on its face.” Gonyea v Motor Parts Fed Credit Union, 192 Mich App 74, 78 ; 480 NW2d 297 (1991).

2019Loutts v Loutts, 298 Mich App 21, 23 ; 826 NW2d 152 (2012) (stating that issues first raised on appeal need not be addressed).

2018“In Michigan, the essential elements of a valid contract are (1) parties competent to contract, (2) a proper subject matter, (3) a legal consideration, (4) mutuality of agreement, and (5) mutuality of obligation.” Thomas v Leja, 187 Mich App 418, 422 ; 468 NW2d 58 (1991).

2018“In Michigan, the essential elements of a valid contract are (1) parties competent to contract, (2) a proper subject matter, (3) a legal consideration, (4) mutuality of agreement, and (5) mutuality of obligation.” Thomas v Leja, 187 Mich App 418, 422 ; 468 NW2d 58 (1991).

2016“An employer’s intentional conduct ‘is the requisite standard triggering the exception to the [WDCA] exclusivity provision.’ ” Fries v Mavrick Metal Stamping, Inc, 285 Mich App 706, 713 ; 777 NW2d 205 (2009), quoting Gray v Morley (After Remand), 460 Mich 738, 742 ; 596 NW2d 922 (1999) (brackets in original).

2016“An employer’s intentional conduct ‘is the requisite standard triggering the exception to the [WDCA] exclusivity provision.’ ” Fries v Mavrick Metal Stamping, Inc, 285 Mich App 706, 713 ; 777 NW2d 205 (2009), quoting Gray v Morley (After Remand), 460 Mich 738, 742 ; 596 NW2d 922 (1999) (brackets in original).

2016A. ABUSE OF PROCESS “To recover upon a theory of abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) an act in the use of process which is improper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding.” Friedman v Dozorc, 412 Mich 1, 30 ; 312 NW2d 585 (1981).

2016A. ABUSE OF PROCESS “To recover upon a theory of abuse of process, a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) an act in the use of process which is improper in the regular prosecution of the proceeding.” Friedman v Dozorc, 412 Mich 1, 30 ; 312 NW2d 585 (1981).

2016“An employer’s intentional conduct ‘is the requisite standard triggering the exception to the [WDCA] exclusivity provision.’ ” Fries v Mavrick Metal Stamping, Inc, 285 Mich App 706, 713 ; 777 NW2d 205 (2009), quoting Gray v Morley (After Remand), 460 Mich 738, 742 ; 596 NW2d 922 (1999) (brackets in original).

2016“An employer’s intentional conduct ‘is the requisite standard triggering the exception to the [WDCA] exclusivity provision.’ ” Fries v Mavrick Metal Stamping, Inc, 285 Mich App 706, 713 ; 777 NW2d 205 (2009), quoting Gray v Morley (After Remand), 460 Mich 738, 742 ; 596 NW2d 922 (1999) (brackets in original).

2011This exclusionary rule historically only applied in the context of actual disputes regarding liability between the parties, Ogden v George F Alger Co, 353 Mich 402, 406-407 ; 91 NW2d 288 (1958), and for the purpose of making peace between them rather than for any other purpose.

2011This exclusionary rule historically only applied in the context of actual disputes regarding liability between the parties, Ogden v George F Alger Co, 353 Mich 402, 406-407 ; 91 NW2d 288 (1958), and for the purpose of making peace between them rather than for any other purpose.