People v. Woodall

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Woodall

271 N.W.2d 298, 85 Mich. App. 514, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2429

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 5, 1978

DocketDocket 77-2526

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 N.W.2d 298 (People v. Woodall) 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

People v. Woodall, 271 N.W.2d 298, 85 Mich. App. 514, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2429 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

United Bonding Company appeals as of right from an order of the Detroit Recorder’s Court entering a judgment of forfeiture on a surety bond in the amount of $500.

Although the default occurred on December 8, 1969, the bond was not forfeited. On March 8, 1977, a nunc pro tunc order was entered forfeiting the bond as of December 8, 1969. We find that the entry of this order was improper.

The function of such an order is to supply an omission in the record of action previously taken by the court but not properly recorded; an order nunc pro tunc may not be utilized to supply a previously omitted action. Sleboede v Sleboede, 384 Mich 555; 184 NW2d 923 (1971), People v Birmingham, 62 Mich App 383; 233 NW2d 551 (1975).

We recognize that no action brought upon a recognizance shall be barred by reason of any neglect or omission to record the default. MCL 765.27; MSA 28.914. However, even if an order of forfeiture had been properly entered in 1969, the action in 1977 to enter a judgment on the bond was barred by the statute of limitations. A surety bond such as the one provided in the instant case is a contract between the government and the principal and surety. People v Tom Johnson, 72 Mich App 702; 250 NW2d 508 (1976). Thus, the 6-year statute of limitations for contracts, MCL 600.5807(8); MSA 27A.5807(8), bars the action in the instant case.

Reversed. Costs to appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

United Bonding Company appeals as of right from an order of the Detroit Recorder’s Court entering a judgment of forfeiture on a surety bond in the amount of $500.

Although the default occurred on December 8, 1969, the bond was not forfeited. On March 8, 1977, a nunc pro tunc order was entered forfeiting the bond as of December 8, 1969. We find that the entry of this order was improper.

The function of such an order is to supply an omission in the record of action previously taken by the court but not properly recorded; an order nunc pro tunc may not be utilized to supply a previously omitted action. Sleboede v Sleboede, 384 Mich 555; 184 NW2d 923 (1971), People v Birmingham, 62 Mich App 383; 233 NW2d 551 (1975).

We recognize that no action brought upon a recognizance shall be barred by reason of any neglect or omission to record the default. MCL 765.27; MSA 28.914. However, even if an order of forfeiture had been properly entered in 1969, the action in 1977 to enter a judgment on the bond was barred by the statute of limitations. A surety bond such as the one provided in the instant case is a contract between the government and the principal and surety. People v Tom Johnson, 72 Mich App 702; 250 NW2d 508 (1976). Thus, the 6-year statute of limitations for contracts, MCL 600.5807(8); MSA 27A.5807(8), bars the action in the instant case.

Reversed. Costs to appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 N.W.2d 298, 85 Mich. App. 514, 1978 Mich. App. LEXIS 2429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodall-michctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack