734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

A court properly held that work completed by a restoration company was the basis of an enforceable contract

The trial court did not err in rejecting defendants' claim that plaintiff lacked standing in this breach of contract case. It also did not err in ruling that the Authorization was an enforceable contract, or abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a mistrial due to the prejudicial effect of plaintiff's counsel's questioning of a witness. Further, it did not abuse its discretion in exercising its "role as a gatekeeper" as to expert testimony. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiff on its breach of contract claim. Defendants, the owners and operators of a condo complex, "experienced significant water damage" due to a burst pipe. R, the secretary of the condo association, signed an authorization with plaintiff, a restoration company, which spent approximately 14 days remediating the damage. Plaintiff sent an invoice for $121,385.35. R thought the price "extremely high, and defendants refused to pay." Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendants argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this suit, and was not the proper party to bring it, because plaintiff's invoice bore the heading "Advanced Restorations, Inc.," a different corporate entity than "Advanced Restorations" (the name under which plaintiff did business). The court disagreed and held that the trial court did not err in rejecting defendants' claim that plaintiff lacked standing. The court also rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff was not the proper party to bring this suit. "A real party in interest is the one who is vested with the right of action on a given claim, although the beneficial interest may be in another." There was uncontroverted trial testimony "that only plaintiff's employees were involved (from the service provider side) in the formation of the contract and the performance of the water restoration; thus, plaintiff performed under the contract and sought compensation under the contract. Moreover, plaintiff received permission from the trial court to amend" its complaint caption. Finally, the entity that defendants apparently claimed was the real party in interest, "i.e., Koets Restoration, Inc (formerly Advanced Restorations, Inc), assigned any claims it had against defendants" to plaintiff. "[A]n assignee of a cause of action becomes the real party in interest with respect to that cause of action, inasmuch as the assignment vests in the assignee all rights previously held by the assignor." 

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405