Hyslop v. Wojjusik

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because the majority gives an overly strict interpretation of MCR 2.102 that is inconsistent with MCR 1.105, that reads language into the *511court rule that does not exist, i.e., a court cannot extend a second summons, that ignores the trial court’s authority to amend process, and that is inconsistent with the intent of MCR 2.102.

This Court reviews interpretation of the court rules de novo. In re Gosnell, 234 Mich App 326, 333; 594 NW2d 90 (1999). This Court also reviews de novo a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v…