VELOCITY MRS FUND IV v. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY (2023)

I agree with the result reached by the majority. I write separately merely to point out that the staff comment to the 1994 amendment to MCR 3.101 lends further support to the majority position. That comment states, “The defendant has 14 days after being served to file objections.”¹ “The” is a definite article contemplating a singular noun or subject. See, Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 462; 613 NW2d 307 (2000) (“[R]ecognizing that ‘the’ is a definite article, and ‘cause’ is a singular noun, it is clear that the phrase ‘the proximate cause’ contemplates one cause.). Thus, the staff comment reinforces the conclusion that only the defendant, rather than a garnishee defendant is permitted to file an objection to a writ of garnishment.

Deborah A. Servitto

FOOTNOTES

1.   While staff comments to the court rules are not binding authority, “they can be persuasive in understanding the proper scope or interpretation of a rule or its terms.” People v Comer, 500 Mich 278, 298 n 48; 901 NW2d 553 (2017).

SERVITTO, J. (concurring).