When Courts Refuse the Sliding Scale: Alken-Ziegler and the Default Judgment Trap

Default judgments occupy a fraught position in Michigan civil practice. They serve an important function—ensuring that litigation proceeds even when one party fails to appear—but they also carry a risk of punishing minor procedural lapses with catastrophic substantive consequences. The Michigan Supreme Court recognized this tension more than two decades ago in Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219 (1999), establishing a sliding-scale framework that calibrates procedural strictness against the strength of the proposed defense. Yet recent cases from Kalamazoo courts suggest that this framework is being ignored in practice, trapping defendants in default judgments that the governing precedent would not sustain.

The Alken-Ziegler Framework

Under MCR 2.603(D)(1), a court may set aside a default or default judgment upon a showing of “good cause” and an affidavit of meritorious defense. The rule provides the procedural mechanism; Alken-Ziegler provides the interpretive framework for its application.

The Supreme Court’s central insight in Alken-Ziegler was that these two requirements—good cause and meritorious defense—do not operate independently. Instead, they exist on a sliding scale:

“If a party states a meritorious defense that would be absolute if proven, a lesser showing of ‘good cause’ will be required.”

The logic is intuitive. If the defendant has a defense so strong that it would completely bar the plaintiff’s recovery—such as lack of standing, absence of contractual privity, or a complete failure of consideration—then the judicial system’s interest in deciding cases on the merits outweighs its interest in enforcing strict procedural compliance. Conversely, where the proposed defense is weak, a stronger showing of good cause is needed to justify setting aside the default.

The Court of Appeals reinforced this principle in Barclay v Crown Building & Development, Inc, 241 Mich App 639, 653 (2000), confirming that the sliding-scale analysis governs the trial court’s discretion under MCR 2.603(D)(1). Together, Alken-Ziegler and Barclay establish a framework that prevents courts from treating minor procedural defaults as irrevocable forfeitures of substantive rights.

How the Framework Operates in Practice

The sliding-scale framework requires a trial court evaluating a motion to set aside a default judgment to engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the court must assess the strength of the proposed meritorious defense. The question is not whether the defense will ultimately prevail, but whether it could prevail if the defendant were given the opportunity to present evidence. Second, the court must determine whether good cause exists for the default, with the threshold for good cause adjusted in light of the defense’s strength.

Consider the range of possibilities. At one end of the spectrum, a defendant presents a defense that would be absolute if proven—say, that the plaintiff is suing on a contract the defendant never signed. In that scenario, Alken-Ziegler requires only a minimal showing of good cause: the defendant need not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances but merely provide some reasonable explanation for the default. At the other end, a defendant whose proposed defense is marginal must make a more compelling case that the default resulted from circumstances justifying relief.

This calibrated approach serves the judicial system’s overarching interest in resolving disputes on the merits rather than on procedural defaults. As the Supreme Court has recognized in other contexts, Michigan law generally disfavors forfeitures and favors adjudication of controversies on their substance.

Exhibit A: The Joseph Case

The recent case of Joseph v Entertainment Managers LLC provides a striking illustration of what happens when the sliding-scale framework is not applied. The case arose from a COVID-era wedding dispute in Kalamazoo involving Entertainment Managers LLC, a multi-venue event company managed by Ryan Reedy. A default judgment of $11,388 plus costs was entered after a three-day calendaring error.

The proposed defenses were substantial. The plaintiff, James Joseph, had never signed the contract at issue. All payments had been made by the mother of the bride under terms that specified payments were nonrefundable. A sworn affidavit from Ryan Reedy confirmed that the company had no records of any payments from James Joseph at any time. The defendant had also rescheduled the event twice at its own expense, committing staff and turning away other clients.

Under the Alken-Ziegler framework, these defenses would appear to fall near the “absolute” end of the spectrum. If James Joseph never signed the contract and never paid, his standing to pursue a breach-of-contract claim or seek a refund is, at minimum, seriously in question. The Alken-Ziegler sliding scale would thus require only a minimal showing of good cause for the three-day default—a showing that the defendant’s prompt filing of an answer (before service of the default itself) would seem to satisfy easily.

But the trial court never performed this analysis. The district judge described himself as “kind of a stickler for following the Court Rules” and declined to set aside the default. The court did not mention Alken-Ziegler. It did not address the sliding-scale framework. It did not weigh the strength of the proposed defenses against the minimal delay. Plaintiff’s counsel reportedly argued: “We don’t even need to get into the meritorious defense argument.” The court apparently agreed.

The result was a default judgment that foreclosed defenses a dissenting appellate judge later called “very strong, if not absolute.”

The Same Courts, Different Case, Different Result

The Joseph outcome is rendered even more problematic by the existence of Stallworth v Entertainment Managers LLC, a case decided by the Court of Appeals just fifteen months earlier. In Stallworth, the same defendant appeared before the same Kalamazoo trial courts in a case involving the same type of COVID wedding dispute. The Michigan Supreme Court intervened under MCR 7.305(H)(1), and on remand, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed, identifying six categories of error including the lower courts’ failure to engage with the defendant’s substantive defenses.

While the procedural posture differed—Stallworth involved summary disposition rather than a default judgment—the underlying principle is the same. In both cases, Kalamazoo courts declined to consider the defendant’s substantive defenses. In Stallworth, that refusal was unanimously held to be reversible error. In Joseph, the same refusal was sustained by a divided appellate panel.

The inconsistency underscores a systemic risk: when trial courts fail to apply the Alken-Ziegler framework, defendants are left without a predictable mechanism for obtaining relief from procedurally-obtained judgments that lack substantive merit.

Practitioner Takeaways

For attorneys representing defendants facing default judgments in Michigan, the Alken-Ziegler framework offers critical strategic opportunities—but only if it is properly invoked and preserved. The Joseph case provides a cautionary example of what can go wrong, and it suggests several concrete steps practitioners should take.

Invoke Alken-Ziegler Expressly

Do not assume the trial court will apply the sliding-scale analysis sua sponte. The motion to set aside the default should cite Alken-Ziegler by name, quote the sliding-scale language, and explicitly argue that the strength of the proposed defense reduces the required showing of good cause. If the defense would be absolute if proven, say so in those words. The goal is to create a record that makes any failure to apply the framework reviewable on appeal.

Front-Load the Meritorious Defense

The affidavit of meritorious defense should be detailed, specific, and supported by documentary evidence. In the Joseph context, for example, the affidavit should attach the contract showing the plaintiff was not a signatory, business records showing no payments from the plaintiff, and any correspondence demonstrating the defendant’s good-faith efforts to reschedule. The stronger the affidavit, the more the sliding scale tips in the defendant’s favor.

Calibrate the Good Cause Showing

Even under the reduced threshold that a strong defense provides, the motion should present a clear explanation for the default. A three-day calendaring error is a minor procedural lapse by any measure, but the explanation should be presented affirmatively: the error was identified promptly, the answer was filed before service of the default, and the defendant acted diligently once the default was discovered. Frame the good cause narrative in terms that the sliding scale expressly accommodates.

Preserve the Issue for Appeal

If the trial court declines to apply Alken-Ziegler, make a clear record of the objection. Request that the court state on the record whether it considered the sliding-scale framework and, if so, how it weighed the proposed defense against the good cause showing. This record is essential for appellate review, particularly because the standard of review for default judgment decisions is abuse of discretion—a standard that, as the Joseph case demonstrates, appellate courts may apply to uphold trial court rulings that omit the required analysis.

Looking Ahead

The Joseph application now pending before the Michigan Supreme Court requests the same MCR 7.305(H)(1) remedy that the Court granted in Stallworth. If the Court agrees to intervene, it will have the opportunity to reinforce the Alken-Ziegler framework and clarify its mandatory application in default judgment proceedings. If it declines, the Joseph default judgment will stand—and trial courts across Michigan will receive the signal that the sliding scale is optional, not obligatory.

Michigan Court Watch will report on the Supreme Court’s disposition when it is issued.