Now Accepting New Clients!

CONTRACTS 3: A contract provision providing for a shortened period of limitations is enforceable.

Plaintiffs owned a house in Michigan. On April 15, 2015, they entered into a one-year listing agreement with defendant, a licensed real estate broker to sell their house in exchange for a 5% sales commission. The house initially listed for $999,000.

In May 2015, a buyer made an initial offer of $910,000 through a real estate agent. Plaintiffs countered through Defendant with an offer to sell the home for $965,000, which the buyer rejected. The same buyer later made another offer, this time for $938,000. Plaintiffs countered with an offer to sell for $957,000, which the buyer rejected by failing to respond within the period specified.

According to plaintiffs, they learned on or about June 2, 2015, that the buyer had scheduled another walk through of the property. Also on June 2, that buyer’s agent allegedly informed Defendant verbally that the buyer intended to offer $950,000 for the property, but Defendant told buyer’s agent that plaintiffs had no interest in continuing to communicate with the Buyer. After the walk through, buyer’s agent purportedly telephoned Defendant with the $950,000 cash offer and followed up the phone call with a written offer via e-mail.

Defendant contends that buyer’s agent did not telephone Defendant with an offer, and asserts that Defendant did not see the written offer attached to buyer’s agent June 2, 2015 email. However, it is undisputed that Defendant did not relay the $950,000 offer to plaintiffs. The offer expired and the buyer purchased a different house in the area. Plaintiffs claim that they learned about the $950,000 cash offer weeks later through a phone call with a different agent.

The only other offer for the house prior to expiration of the listing agreement with Defendant came in September 2015 and was for $810,000. After the listing agreement expired on April 15, 2016, plaintiffs elected not to renew the agreement with Defendant; instead, they engaged a different agent, who eventually sold the house for $840,000.

On December 22, 2016, plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for the lost sale. They alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, entitlement to exemplary damages, and other claims.

Defendants filed an answer, followed ten days later by a motion and supporting brief for summary disposition. They argued that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the listing agreement, which provides for a shortened limitations period as follows: LIMITATION: Seller and Brokerage Firm agree that any and all claims or lawsuits between the parties relating to this agreement must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of termination of this agreement. The parties waive any statute of limitations to the contrary. The listing agreement expired on April 15, 2016; accordingly, the limitation period expired six months later, on October 15, 2016.

The main goal in interpreting a contract is to honor the parties’ intent as discerned from the words used in the contract. An unambiguous contractual provision providing for a shortened period of limitations is to be enforced as written unless the provision would violate law or public policy.

Trial court enforced the contractually shortened period of limitations by granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition.

Finding the right attorney to assist with the purchase, sale or acquisition of real estate is critical.

Whether you are buying or selling a home or you are involved in a commercial real estate transaction, an experienced real estate attorney can make a world of difference.

We assist our clients in a wide range of real estate transactions, including:

  • Home purchases and sales
  • Draft, review and negotiation of real estate contracts
  • Residential and commercial leases
  • For sale by owner transactions (home sales by homeowners)
  • Home closings
  • Land contracts
  • Draft of real estate deeds, including quit claim deeds

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000