 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bowden v. Hutzel Hospital8/9/2002
ment. This includes the minor through his guardian ad litem, where the next friend might be guided by self interest instead of the best interests of the minor. MCR 2.420(B)(2). Without such approval, there has been no settlement.
I respectfully disagree with the majority's reliance on the general rules of pleading and practice in the probate court, and specifically MCR 5.121. MCR 5.121(D)(1) indicates that reports from guardians may be received and may be relied on by the court; however, MCR 2.420, which specifically addresses settlements involving minors, as opposed to general rules of probate, mandates that a guardian ad litem be appointed "to approve the settlement." MCR 2.420(B)(2). The majority's opinion would nullify this requirement based on a conflicting court rule. In essence, the majority is ruling that the trial court can ignore a guardian ad litem's disapproval of a settlement, leaving the question of why then appoint a guardian in the first place. The majority's interpretation of MCR 2.420(B)(2) would render it meaningless, and this Court must avoid interpretations that would render any part of a court rule surplusage or nugatory. Yudashkin v Holden, 247 Mich App 642, 652; 637 NW2d 257 (2001).
A fundamental rule of court rule construction is than when a general provision is in conflict with a specific provision, the specific rule prevails. See People v McEwan, 214 Mich App 690, 695; 543 NW2d 367 (1995). Here, MCR 2.420 controls, as opposed to MCR 5.121, because it is the more specific rule. The rules governing statutory interpretation apply equally to the interpretation of court rules. Yudashkin, supra at 649. If the plain and ordinary meaning of the language is clear, then judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted, and unless explicitly defined, every word or phrase should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used. Id. at 649-650. The language of MCR 2.420(B)(2) is clear and unambiguous, and it requires approval of the guardian ad litem.
In the present case, Buttiglieri withdrew his report approving the settlement agreement on June 22, 2000. Therefore, absent approval from Buttiglieri, the settlement agreement entered into by plaintiffs was and is not enforceable because it failed to satisfy the requirements of MCR 2.420(B)(2).
I would reverse and remand for a hearing only if the guardian ad litem approves the settlement. Without such approval, the case should remain open and proceed accordingly.
William B. Murphy
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|