Now Accepting New Clients!

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 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.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

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