734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 48: Statute of frauds rendered the acquisition agreement unenforceable.

In March 2011, plaintiff and defendant entered into discussions for Defendant to participate in a real estate investment program run by plaintiff.

The terms of the investment program were outlined in a written acquisition agreement, but plaintiff and Defendant failed to sign the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, plaintiff would identify properties for Defendant to purchase as investment properties. If Defendant chose to purchase a property, plaintiff would purchase the property on Defendant’s behalf, and would title the property in either Defendant’s name, or in the name of Defendant’s designated entity. Plaintiff would receive $5,000 for this service. The agreement went on to provide that plaintiff retained an exclusive right to sell any property obtained for Defendant and would receive a commission of 7% of the gross sale of any property sold. The remaining proceeds of the sale, after deducting costs incurred by Defendant, would be split evenly between plaintiff and Defendant. If the property were sold for a profit of less than $1,000, the proceeds would not be split. If any property acquired by plaintiff for Defendant was not sold within five years of the agreement, plaintiff would be entitled to 50% of the property’s gross sale price premised on a valuation of the property.

Plaintiff purchased two properties for Defendant under the agreement at a sheriff’s sale on March 22, 2011. Plaintiff had the properties deeded to Defendant’s LLC. Five years later, the properties had not been sold, and defendants refused to pay plaintiff under the agreement. Plaintiff filed a complaint in August 2017, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and sought 50% of the equity in the properties under the agreement.

Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8), arguing that the agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because the agreement granted a conveyance of land to plaintiff, it could not be completed within one year, and plaintiff sought a commission for the sale of real estate.

The court found the agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it granted plaintiff an interest in land.

The starting point in analyzing oral statements for contractual implications is to determine the meaning that reasonable persons might have attached to the language, given the circumstances presented. Furthermore, the overreaching principle of contract interpretation is that the court looks to all the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction, including all writings, oral statements, and other conduct by which the parties manifested their intent.

MCL 566.106 requires contracts establishing an interest in land to be in writing. Contracts that fall within any portion of the statute of frauds are unenforceable.

Plaintiff and defendants agree that there was no writing in this case. Thus, the agreement’s terms determine whether it falls within the statute of frauds. Three types of contracts that fall within the statute of frauds are relevant in this case: (1) contracts that cannot be completed within one year of formation, MCL 566.132(1)(a), (2) contracts paying a commission for the sale of land, MCL 566.132(1)(e), and (3) contracts creating an interest in land, MCL 566.106. If the agreement falls within any of these areas then it falls within the statute of frauds and is unenforceable.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to defendants because the statute of frauds rendered the agreement unenforceable.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter?

If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

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