Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


BRADLEY BENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v JAMES WOLFENBARGER, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED July 27, 1999

No. 210803 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 97-001438 CZ

Before: Doctoroff, P.J., Markman and J.B.Sullivan*, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this action for contribution, plaintiff appeals as of right from the order of the trial court granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm. Plaintiff argues that the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding in making its determination that neither plaintiff nor defendant was individually liable in the underlying action. We disagree. Appellate review of decisions regarding motions for summary disposition is de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone; all factual allegations in support of the claim are accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts. Simko v Blake, 448 Mich 648, 654; 532 NW2d 842 (1995); Kuhn v Secretary of State, 228 Mich App 319, 323-324; 579 NW2d 101 (1998). The motion must be granted if no factual development could justify the plaintiff's claim for relief. Spiek, supra at 337. Contribution is the partial payment made by each or any of jointly or severally liable tortfeasors who share a common liability to an injured party. St Luke's Hospital v Giertz, 458 Mich 448, 453; 581 NW2d 665 (1998). The right to contribution in Michigan is controlled entirely by statute, since there is no right to contribution at common law. Reurink Bros Star Silo, Inc v Clinton Co Road Comm'rs, 161 Mich App 67, 70; 409 NW2d 725 (1987). MCL 600.2925a et seq.; MSA 27A.2925(1) et seq., is the statute which provides for contribution between tortfeasors. Klawiter v Reurink , 196 Mich App 263, 264; 492 NW2d 801 (1992).

* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

In Reurink, supra, at 72-73, this Court stated that MCL 600.2925a(3); MSA 27A.2925(1)(3) "implicitly" sets forth the elements of a claim for contribution by a settling tortfeasor as follows: (1) there must be joint liability on the part of the plaintiff and defendant; (2) the plaintiff must have paid more than the plaintiff's pro-rata share of the common liability; (3) the settlement entered into by the plaintiff must extinguish the liability of the defendant; (4) a reasonable effort must have been made to notify the defendant of the pendency of the settlement negotiations; (5) the defendant must have been given a reasonable opportunity to participate in settlement negotiations; and (6) the settlement must have been made in good faith. In this case, we need address only the first element, i.e., the requirement of joint liability on the part of the plaintiff and defendant. In its Opinion and Order granting summary disposition to defendant for plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, see Boggerty v Wilson, 160 Mich App 514, 530; 408 NW2d 809 (1987) (courts speak through their written orders, not their oral statements), the trial court stated that neither plaintiff nor defendant was found to be personally liable in the underlying action, but rather only the corporation was found to be liable. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion that the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding, we conclude that the trial court was merely reiterating what occurred in the underlying action, i.e., that only the corporation was found liable, to provide support for its conclusion that plaintiff had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Since the trial court reached the right result, we conclude that any additional "factfinding" was surplusage at best. Lane v KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc, 231 Mich App 689, 697; 588 NW2d 715 (1998). The Business Corporation Act, MCL 450.1101 et. seq.; MSA 21.200(101) et. seq., provides in

Download BRADLEY BENDER V JAMES WOLFENBARGER.pdf

Michigan Law