STATE OF MICHIGAN
BERRIEN COUNTY
TRIAL COURT – CIVIL DIV
ORDER
CASE NO.
2025-000346-CZ
HON. DONNA B. HOWARD
Court address
811 Port Street.
St. Joseph, MI 49085-1188
Court telephone no.
(269) 983-7111
Plaintiffs name, address, and telephone no.
THE RADA GROUP LLC, d/b/a North Shore Estates Mobile Home Park
Plaintiffs attorney: bar no., address I and telephone no.
MICHAEL S BURNS P87855
30833 NORTHWESTERN HWY, STE 120
FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334
(248)851-8000
V
Defendant’s name, address, and telephone no.
JOHN DOE
1565 N M-65 LOT 48
BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022
1. Motion title: Motion for Second Summons; Amended Motion for Alternate Service
2. Moving party: Plaintiff
4. For the reasons stated on the record or herein.
IT IS ORDERED that the above named motion is granted in part, denied in part.
THE COURT FINDS that in this matter on November 26, 2025 the Court entered a notice of intent to strike the initial filed pleadings for certain deficiencies therein. On or about December 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed its amended pleadings purportedly correcting some of the deficiencies. The
named defendant as “John Doe” remained unchanged from the initial pleadings as captioned [see, 1st Am Compl, 12/17/2025]. However, as still specified in the body of the amended pleadings, the use of the name, “John Doe,” is as a fictitious misnomer more specifically representing “the unknown owner of record of the manufactured home described as a 1995 SKYLINE, with VIN M15849R131V101425.” [1st Am Compl, 12/17/2025, p 1,¶ 2].
On January 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for alternative service, seeking in part, that the Court allow service by publication consistent with MCR 2.106 [Am Mot Alt Svc, 1/21/2026]. Again, there is no description associated with “John Doe” in describing upon whom service of process is sought [Am Mot Alt Svc, 1/21/2026,¶ 1]. Rather, in Paragraph 2.b. Plaintiff describes as the basis for its motion that “Defendant is the unknown owner of the mobile home.” [Am Mot Alt Svc, 1/21/2026, ¶2]. Contemporaneous with Plaintiff’s amended motion, it timely filed a motion for a second summons with an expiration date of the original summons to “John Doe” defendant on January 27,2026.
However, MCR 2.106(C)(2), regarding service of process by posting or publication, provides that, “[i]f the names of some or all defendants are unknown, the order must describe the relationship of the unknown defendants to the matter to be litigated in the best way possible, as, for example, unknown claimants, unknown owners, or unknown heirs, devisees, or assignees of a named person.” Further, nothing in MCR 2.105 or 2.106, if not the balance of the Court Rules, expressly provide for the use of the misnomer, “John Doe” as a party defendant in a summons or complaint, or for purposes of service of process, particularly where that notice will be by publication to unknown persons. Instead, MCR 2.201 explicitly instructs litigants how an unknown party is to be named, in pertinent part as follows
(D) Unknown Parties; Procedure.
(1) Persons who are or may be interested in the subject matter of an action, but whose names cannot be ascertained on diligent inquiry, may be made parties by being described as:
(a) unknown claimants;
(b) unknown owners; or
(c) unknown heirs, devisees, or assignees of a deceased person who may have been interested in the subject matter of the action.
If it cannot be ascertained on diligent inquiry whether a person who is or may be interested in the subject matter of the action is alive or dead, what disposition the person may have made of his or her interest, or where the person resides if alive, the person and everyone claiming under him or her may be made parties by naming the person and adding “or [his or her] unknown heirs, devisees, or assignees.”
As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs use of just “John Doe” as named defendant is inconsistent with the Court Rules, and particularly for purposes of giving notice and/or service of process is plainly insufficient, and Plaintiffs above motions are denied in that part, and a correction of the named “John Doe” defendant is warranted.
WHEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY FURTHER ORDERS the following:
1) Pursuant to MCR 2.207 and 2.201(D), for purposes of this action, including but not limited to the verified complaint, second summons, order for alternate service, and publication, the name “John Doe” as a named defendant is STRUCK, and REPLACED with “Unknown Claimants, Owners, Heirs, Devisees, or Assigns of the 1995 Skyline manufactured home at 1565 N. M-63, Lot #48, Benton Harbor, MI 49022” as the named defendant;
2) Pursuant to MCR 2.102, and with the above change in the named defendant, the time for service is extended, and a second summons shall be issued to expire on May 26, 2026;
3) Pursuant to MCR 2.105(J) and 2.106, and with the above change in the named defendant, service of a corrected summons and complaint, and a copy of this order shall be made by the following methods:
a. Tacking or firmly affixing to the door at 1565 N M-63, Lot # 48, Benton Harbor, MI
49022; and
b. By publication in the Berrien County Legal News for three consecutive weeks
consistent with all the requirements of MCR 2.106.
For each method used, proof of service must be filed promptly with the Court.
SO ORDERED. This is not a final order and does not close the case.
Dated: 2/12/2026
Signed:
Hon. Donna B. Howard (P57635)
(03-12)(03-26)