Legal Opinion
In Re Credit Acceptance Corp.
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided March 30, 2007No. Docket 262404PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBandstra, J.
Plaintiff Credit Acceptance Corporation appeals as of right the dismissal of its complaint for an order of superintending control over defendant 46th District Court. We conclude that MCR 3.101(D) does not allow a court to require that a judgment creditor provide information or documentation in addition to the verified statement required by that rule before the court issues a writ of garnishment. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Plaintiffs counsel filed numerous verified statements seeking writs of garnishment from defendant pursuant to MCR 3.101(D). Many of them were rejected. According…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Fast Air, Inc v. KnightMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- Brenner v. KolkMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998
- Cummings v. Wayne CountyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
- Shepherd Montessori Center Milan v. Ann Arbor Charter TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Halverson v. HardcastleNevada Supreme Court · 2007
- Lamkin v. EngramMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012
- People v. WurmMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
- Vanderkodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2018
- Buhl v. ClementDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.