734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

CONTRACTS 6: Do you understand the clauses in your Purchase Agreement?

This case arises out of plaintiff’s purchase of a personal residence from defendants (sellers) in 2016. Sellers had completed a Seller’s Disclosure Statement (SDS) on August 8, 2015, which they had updated on December 30, 2015. Pertinent to the issues here, the SDS indicated that the house had a geothermal heating system that was in working order. Further, the SDS indicated that there were features of the property deemed in common with the adjoining landowners, including roads, whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the property.

In May 2016, plaintiff and sellers executed a purchase agreement for the sale of the subject property. Defendant W, an independent agent with Keller Williams Realty, represented sellers in the transaction.

Pertinent to this appeal, the purchase agreement contained an “as-is-condition” clause, providing:

AS IS CONDITION: Purchaser acknowledges that Seller has provided Purchaser a required Seller’s Disclosure Statement. Purchaser has been afforded an independent inspection of the property and the Purchaser affirms that Purchaser has examined the above described property and is satisfied with the physical condition of the structure thereon and purchases said property in an “AS IS CONDITION,” subject only to the rights of a property inspection.

It is further agreed that Keller Williams Realty and its agents have made no representations or warranties of any kind nor assume any responsibility for representations made by Seller or any cooperating broker pertaining to the condition of the property. The purchase agreement also contained an arbitration clause.

In December 2016, several months after the closing, the geothermal furnace allegedly failed. Plaintiff maintained that he was informed that it was necessary to replace the unit

On March 23, 2018, plaintiff initiated the instant action by filing a complaint. The complaint alleged that before execution of the purchase agreement, defendants knowingly made representations attesting to the proper working condition of the property’s geothermal heating system, even though defendants knew that these representations were false and that the furnace was broken or showed signs of potential breakdown. The complaint further alleged that sellers omitted facts regarding ownership of the private road and its condition.

Plaintiff sought to void the purchase agreement on this basis and requested damages equal to the purchase price, the mortgage payments he had made on the home, and the cost of repairing the private road.

On May 2, 2018, in lieu of filing an answer, defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10). The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

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.

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
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