Alleged conspirator is allowed opportunity to amend answer after allegations are deemed "admitted."
Joseph Blouin sued Robert V. Yeo, Jr., Michael Sayers and others, alleging that they had promulgated a scheme to defraud Blouin of $500,000.00 under the guise of a real estate investment. Sayers answered every count in the Complaint with the phrase "Defendant neither admits nor denies but leaves plaintiff to his proofs." Blouin's attorneys persuaded the judge that this noncommital response violates the pertinent court rule and therefore constituted and admission--as a matter of court rule--of the Plaintiff's claims. Since all of the claims were deemed admitted, the court granted Blouin summary disposition and Sayers appealed.
The defendant argued that the lower court had mis-applied the court rule and that, in any event, he should have been allowed an opportunity to amend his Answer. The Appellate Court agreed with the lower court that the pertinent rule was properly applied, and that summary disposition was properly entered, despite the fact that non-committal answers of this nature have become commonplace in modern defense pleading. Nevertheless, it ruled that the lower court had erred in refusing the Defendant's request to amend the answer.