 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy v. Steinberg6/24/2003
ns expired on July 20, 2001. See VandenBerg v VandenBerg, 231 Mich App 497; 586 NW2d 570 (1998). Plaintiff's later attempt to submit "proper" affidavits is simply untimely. Plaintiff filed the amended affidavits on September 18, 2001, well past the statute of limitations expiration and long after the problem was brought to plaintiff counsel's attention. Therefore, the untimely "correction" does not save the action from the time bar.
Moreover, and contrary to the trial court's apparent reasoning, Holmes is not distinguishable because this case involves a "defective" jurat rather than a missing jurat. The statements at issue here do not merely constitute inadequate or defective affidavits; they evidence an overt attempt to deceive the trial court by falsely representing that the documents were properly signed and sworn. An affidavit with a false jurat does not amount "substantial compliance" with MCL 600.2912d(1) and we decline to treat a fraudulent jurat or intentional misrepresentation more favorably than no jurat at all.
Plaintiff's complaint was null and void as a matter of law and the trial court should have granted defendants' motion for summary disposition. Scarsella II, supra at 549.
Reversed.
Jane E. Markey
Henry William Saad
Kurtis T. Wilder
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|