Filed by Conrad · Case 26-104594-DO
13 Response Opposing Motion To Set Aside Default V4 2026-05-14
Canonical record: rockenhaus.net. Disputed domains are indexed at /disputed-domains/ (not authoritative).
Loading document…
Filing text (searchable excerpt)
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE
FAMILY DIVISION, DOMESTIC RELATIONS
ADRIENNE MARJORIE ROCKENHAUS, Case No. 26-104594-DO
Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant,
Hon. Nicole N. Goodson
v.
CONRAD ALAN ROCKENHAUS,
Defendant/Counter‑Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT OF
COUNTERCLAIM
NOW COMES Defendant/Counter‑Plaintiff Conrad Alan Rockenhaus, appearing pro se, and respectfully
submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default of
Counterclaim, filed May 13, 2026 (the "Motion to Set Aside"). In support of this Response,
Defendant/Counter‑Plaintiff states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This Court should deny the Motion to Set Aside for three independent reasons, each of which is
independently dispositive.
First, the Motion to Set Aside contains no verification of any kind. The Motion bears the title "Verified
Motion" but contains no oath, no affirmation, no sworn statement, and no signed declaration under penalty
of perjury consistent with MCR 1.109(D)(3). The Motion is signed only by Lisa R. Baker as counsel under
MCR 1.109(E), which is a procedurally distinct act from verification. Both MCR 3.210(B)(3) (the rule
Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant invokes) and MCR 2.603(D)(1) (the rule referenced in the supporting Brief)
condition relief on a verified showing. Neither rule is satisfied.
Second, even if the Court were to overlook the verification defect, good cause has not been established.
The Motion's own factual recitation defeats its central argument. The Motion concedes (at paragraph 4) that
Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant's Answer to Counterclaim was due on May 6, 2026. The Motion further asserts
(at paragraphs 6, 14, and 15) that counsel's failure to file is excusable because counsel expected to be
released from representation on May 12, 2026. The May 12 expected withdrawal date is six days after the
May 6 deadline. Counsel's expectation that it would be withdrawn from representation after the Answer
deadline elapsed cannot supply a reasonable excuse for failing to file before the deadline elapsed.
Third, the proposed Answer to Counterclaim that Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant attached as the predicate for
a meritorious defense does not state a meritorious defense as a matter of law. Every substantive paragraph
of the proposed Answer uses the formulaic phrase "can neither admit nor deny for lack of sufficient
information available, and leaves Defendant/Counter‑Plaintiff to his proofs," even with respect to allegations
concerning Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant's own conduct, her own statements to law enforcement, her own
management of her own business, and her own communications. Such pleading is procedurally improper
under MCR 2.111(C)(1) and operates as a functional admission under MCR 2.111(D). The proposed
Answer cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a meritorious defense. The same pattern appears in
Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant's contemporaneously-served Answers to Defendant's First Set of Requests for
Admissions.
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
1. Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant filed her Complaint for Divorce on April 9, 2026.
2. Defendant/Counter‑Plaintiff was personally served on April 14, 2026, and filed his Answer, Affirmative
Defenses, and Counterclaim on April 15, 2026.
3. Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant, Aldrich Legal Services, PLLC, was served with the
Counterclaim through electronic transmission pursuant to MCR 2.107(G) on or about April 15, 2026
through April 17, 2026.
4. Under MCR 2.108(A)(4), Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant's response to the Counterclaim was due within
Excerpt of 30136 characters. Download the full PDF for complete text.
About this filing
13 Response Opposing Motion To Set Aside Default V4 2026-05-14: filing by Conrad Alan Rockenhaus in Rockenhaus v. Rockenhaus (Divorce), Michigan Case No. 26-104594-DO, Wayne County Circuit Court. PDF and searchable text at rockenhaus.net (canonical court record). Disputed third-party domains: /disputed-domains/.
- File name
13_Response_Opposing_Motion_to_Set_Aside_Default_v4_2026-05-14.pdf- Filed date
- Case number
- 26-104594-DO
- Category
- Filed by Conrad
- Disputed domains
- View disputed domains (asserted controlled by Adrienne Rockenhaus; not authoritative).
- Related context
- FAQ, Joe Prich evidence, Rob Hein
- Canonical record
- rockenhaus.net