City Bank & Trust Co. v. Kwaske Bros. Construction Co.

259 N.W.2d 407, 78 Mich. App. 158, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1177
CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 7, 1977
DocketDocket 30246
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 259 N.W.2d 407 (City Bank & Trust Co. v. Kwaske Bros. Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City Bank & Trust Co. v. Kwaske Bros. Construction Co., 259 N.W.2d 407, 78 Mich. App. 158, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1177 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinions

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.

City Bank and Trust Company appeals an order of the lower court allowing costs and attorney’s fees of $3,731.20 in favor of Brooks Abstract Company. A detailed recounting of the facts in this case appears in City Bank & Trust Co v Kwaske Brothers Construction Co, 69 Mich App 271; 244 NW2d 443 (1976). Suffice it to say for purposes of this case that the garnishee defendant, Brooks Abstract Company, prevailed via summary judgment in the lower court to the effect that there was a finding of no liability to the principal defendant.

The taxation of costs from the garnishment proceedings is the issue to which we address ourselves. In doing so, we affirm the result reached by the lower court.

The applicable court rule, GCR 1963, 526.9, pertaining to costs in a garnishment proceeding, controls over other subsections of GCR 526 whenever a garnishment action is involved. Plaintiff urges us to apply subsection 526.7 (Costs on Summary Judgment) on the premise that even though this case is a garnishment proceeding it did, in fact, end in summary judgment. A holding of that sort would contravene the general rule followed by Michigan courts that the more specific rule controls. See Reed v Secretary of State, 327 Mich 108; [161]*16141 NW2d 491 (1950). Accordingly we find that 526.9 was correctly called into application.

Within 526.9(1) plaintiff argues that attorney’s fees should be limited to those incurred in filing the disclosure.1 Instead we understand the court rule as permitting those fees as well as other necessary expenses incurred by attorney and client alike.

Affirmed.

Allen, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Gerber Trust
323 N.W.2d 567 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Salvador v. Connor
276 N.W.2d 458 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)
City Bank & Trust Co. v. Kwaske Bros. Construction Co.
259 N.W.2d 407 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 N.W.2d 407, 78 Mich. App. 158, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-bank-trust-co-v-kwaske-bros-construction-co-michctapp-1977.