Velasquez v. Meehan

Michigan Court of Appeals

Velasquez v. Meehan

185 N.W.2d 103, 28 Mich. App. 619, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1252

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 9, 1970

DocketDocket No. 6557

StatusPublished

This text of 185 N.W.2d 103 (Velasquez v. Meehan) 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

Velasquez v. Meehan, 185 N.W.2d 103, 28 Mich. App. 619, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1252 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Litigation of a legally insignificant but predictably acrimonious boundary dispute resulted in dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint by summary judgment. Attempts to negotiate settlement of defendants’ counter-complaint resulted in further strife and defendants moved for leave to file an amended counter-complaint alleging settlement agreement and praying for specific performance thereof. At the hearing on that motion, an invariably considerate and composed trial judge, distraught by the petty perversity of the parties over a matter that was virtually de minimis, granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the proffered counter-complaint. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to file a written response, they made no admissions at the hearing, and specifically denied the agreement claimed by defendants.

There being disputed issues of fact, we reverse and remand. Hudson v. Hudson (1970), 27 Mich App 137; Durant v. Stahlin (1965), 375 Mich 628.

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

Per Curiam.

Litigation of a legally insignificant but predictably acrimonious boundary dispute resulted in dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint by summary judgment. Attempts to negotiate settlement of defendants’ counter-complaint resulted in further strife and defendants moved for leave to file an amended counter-complaint alleging settlement agreement and praying for specific performance thereof. At the hearing on that motion, an invariably considerate and composed trial judge, distraught by the petty perversity of the parties over a matter that was virtually de minimis, granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the proffered counter-complaint. Plaintiffs had no opportunity to file a written response, they made no admissions at the hearing, and specifically denied the agreement claimed by defendants.

There being disputed issues of fact, we reverse and remand. Hudson v. Hudson (1970), 27 Mich App 137; Durant v. Stahlin (1965), 375 Mich 628.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.W.2d 103, 28 Mich. App. 619, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velasquez-v-meehan-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack