REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against either party or against Broker(s) or their agents related to the condition of the Property or arising out of the provisions of this Agreement or any service rendered or not rendered must be brought within the shorter of (a) the time provided by law or (b) one (1) year after the Closing, or be forever barred.

Before closing, the property was appraised. The appraisal revealed multiple problems with the house, including water damage to the ceilings and a “failing” roof. Nevertheless, the parties closed on the sale of the property on June 21, 2016. On August 2, 2018, plaintiffs filed a six-count complaint against defendants. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that the contractual one-year period of limitations in the purchase agreement barred the lawsuit. The trial court agreed, granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs now appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo. We likewise review de novo issues of statutory construction. Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), summary disposition is appropriate when a claim is barred because of a “statute of limitations[.] Contractual language is interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning, and we must avoid technical or constrained constructions. A contract is ambiguous when the words can reasonably be understood in different ways. We initially conclude that the one-year period referenced in the purchase agreement is akin to a statute of repose and not a statute of limitations. “A statute of repose prevents a cause of action from ever accruing when the injury is sustained after the designated statutory period has elapsed[,]” while “[a] statute of limitation . . . prescribes the time limits in which a party may bring an action that has already accrued.” The period of repose in the purchase agreement is plain and unambiguous. Again, the parties closed on the property on June 21, 2016; therefore, under the terms of the purchase agreement, plaintiffs were required to bring any suit by June 21, 2017. In sum, we hold that the one-year period of repose barred the lawsuit.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred by denying their motion for reconsideration. “This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration.” A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration. As discussed above, a statute or period of repose cannot be tolled pursuant to MCL 600.5855. In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the motion for reconsideration.

ASSISTANCE WITH PROPERTY ISSUES

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

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

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

PROBATE 42: The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiff-PR’s fraud and conversion action on the basis that it was barred by a prior judgment.

Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging statutory and common law conversion. In July 2018, a global settlement was reached as to the various matters pending in the probate court. Relevant to this appeal, Plaintiff’s conversion claims...

REAL ESTATE 67: The court held that the trial court plainly erred by deciding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the mortgage interest rate.

BACKGROUND Many of the facts are undisputed. In November 2007, Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with Plaintiff, in which Defendant agreed to lend Plaintiff $500,000 secured by certain real property located in Livingston County. Both...

DIVORCE 54: The trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for attorney fees without conducting a hearing or allowing her to support her request.

This case arises from the dissolution of plaintiff and defendant’s marriage. Defendant was a stay-at-home parent for the parties’ two children during the majority of the marriage. The children were adults at the time of the separation...

REAL ESTATE 66: Finding all of defendant-seller’s arguments unpersuasive, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting judgment for plaintiff-buyer in this land contract dispute.

BACKGROUND On May 5, 2014, the parties entered into a land contract for the sale of real property from defendant to plaintiff. In the land contract, plaintiff...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce. Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

CONTRACT 15: The court held that the plaintiff received the benefit of his bargain with defendant. Thus, the trial court did not err when it granted defendant summary disposition as to his breach-of-contract claim.

Plaintiff contracted with Defendant for the installation of a geothermal heating and cooling unit for a home he was constructing. Plaintiff brought suit under theories of breach of contract and negligence—among other causes of action not...

SPOUSAL SUPPORT 1: The Factors that Determine Spousal Support.

The Court recognizes that the object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished; spousal support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.

DIVORCE 52: The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendant ex-wife attorney fees.

Plaintiff and defendant divorced after a 36-year marriage. The divorce trial took place on October 1, 2014, and the court made a dispositional ruling from the bench on October 30, 2014. In the original dispositional ruling, the court erroneously...

REAL ESTATE 64: The Plaintiff met her burden of proof in her quiet title action to establish a prima facie case of title to the property at issue.

Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to residential property she purchased, allegedly from defendant, in 2015, pursuant to a quitclaim deed. Intervening defendant claimed it acquired superior title to the property in November 2016 and also...

FAMILY LAW 57: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-mother’s motion to change custody and modify her parenting time of the parties’ child.

BACKGROUND MC was born in the summer of 2014 at which time the parties resided together. In November 2014, plaintiff-father filed a complaint for sole physical and joint legal custody of MC. The complaint and subsequent motions presented highly...

WILLS AND TRUST 10: THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

PERTINENT FACTS This case concerns a dispute regarding the disbursement of Lakeside Trust Number 1 (“Lakeside Trust”), a trust created by appellee in relation to her mother’s trust, the EJA Trust . The grantor and settlor of the...

DIVORCE 51: Holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff-ex-wife’s requested calculation of interest payments, the court vacated the ruling and remanded the case.

The Plaintiff and defendant were married in October 1994. Plaintiff filed for divorce on February 4, 2004, and the trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce on January 5, 2005. The judgment referenced a property settlement agreement, under...

DIVORCE 50: WHILE THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A LEGAL ERROR IN RULING THAT DEFENDANT’S PENSION WAS NOT A MARITAL ASSET, REVERSAL WAS NOT REQUIRED.

The parties were married in 1988 and have three adult children. During their marriage, the parties purchased the marital home in 1994 (1994 home) with marital funds. After plaintiff’s father died in 2006, the home next door to the marital home...

CRIMINAL 8: Charged with aiding and abetting of manufacturing marijuana.

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), provides very limited circumstances in which persons involved with the use of marijuana, may avoid criminal liability. Accomplices to crimes may be prosecuted under an aiding and abetting theory.

PROBATE 41: MCL 700.5204(2)(b) is constitutional and does not infringe on a parent’s constitutional right to the care, custody, and management of his or her children.

FAMILY LAW 56: The court held that the trial court erred by failing to consider up-to-date information before ordering the change of the child’s ECE.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The parties were involved in a romantic relationship when the minor child who is the subject of these proceedings was born on February 9, 2006. The parties did not live together and were never married. Approximately one year...

FAMILY LAW 54: The trial court’s conclusion that defendant-mother had a substance abuse issue was not against the great weight of the evidence and did not require expert testimony.

BACKGROUND The parties have a minor child (ABF), who was twelve-years-old at the time of the proceedings. Defendant had primary physical custody of ABF until she...

REAL ESTATE 63: HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED TITLE, AND THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW SUPERIOR TITLE, THE COURT AFFIRMED SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR PLAINTIFF IN THIS QUIET TITLE ACTION UNDER MCL 600.2932(1).

This case arises out of a property dispute between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property back-up against one another, so the back of plaintiff’s property borders the back of defendants’...

CRIMINAL LAW 7: Was initial contact with defendant a Terry stop?

The fact that the officers subjected defendant to a Terry stop does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

REAL ESTATE 62: THE SUPREME COURT VACATED THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR RECONSIDERATION

BACKGROUND The Court needed to determine the actual extent of an easement for a drain that runs across the southern edge of the plaintiff’s property. The releases at issue conveyed rights to fifty-foot strips of land on either side of the...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

FAMILY LAW 54: The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support.

The parties were married for over 20 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. At the divorce trial, the parties’ incomes were a source of contention. Plaintiff wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

DIVORCE 49: IT WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO AWARD BOTH PARTIES THEIR OWN APPRECIATED 401(K) ACCOUNTS.

Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s divorce judgment, challenging the decision to award each party their respective 401(k) accounts. Plaintiff argued in the trial court that she was entitled to a portion of the appreciation that...

REAL ESTATE 61: The trial court did not err in ruling that the disputed boundary was established by acquiescence arising from intent to deed to a marked boundary line.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent properties. Defendants’ property is east of plaintiff’s property, and the western boundary of defendants’ property is also the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s property....

DIVORCE 48: The trial court may only determine whether the parties’ agreement to arbitrate is ambiguous, not whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract was correct.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, and following mediation, the parties reached a transcribed mediation agreement in June 2014. The mediator read an outline of a property settlement agreement, the terms of which were to be...

REAL ESTATE 60: The trial court erred in granting summary disposition to the Defendants as to Plaintiff’s quiet title, promissory estoppels, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud in the inducement claims.

BACKGROUND This case arises out of a dispute between plaintiff and defendants regarding ownership of real property in Hamtramck, Michigan. Plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims of quiet title, breach of contract and promissory estoppel,...

Understanding the Difference Between Assault and Battery

For some, assault and battery are two terms that are commonly mixed up or used interchangeably while conversing.

DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS

BACKGROUND The parties married in 1978, and they have three adult children. Plaintiff filed for divorce in September 2018, by which time both parties had reached retirement age. The property issues in dispute should have been relatively...

DIVORCE 47: A CIRCUIT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE MATTERS AND HAS ALL EQUITABLE POWERS AVAILABLE TO IT TO EFFECTUATE ITS ORDERS

PROBATE 40: THE PROBATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY INTERESTS OF A PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL THAT WERE TRANSFERRED BEFORE A CONSERVATORSHIP CAME INTO EFFECT.

On October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed a complaint as the Ward’s conservator and guardian against Respondent. Petitioner and Respondent are siblings and the children of the Ward. In the complaint, Petitioner alleged that she filed a...

Can Passengers Drink Alcohol in a Car?

Michigan forbids the presence of open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger area of vehicles.

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

DIVORCE 45: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

UNDERLYING FACTS Plaintiff and defendant were married in September 2001 and divorced in August 2013. The parties entered into a divorce settlement agreement which included, in relevant part, a provision titled “Mutual Release of...

WILLS AND TRUST 9: THE COURT REJECTED A BENEFICIARY’S CLAIM THAT RESPONDANT VIOLATED HIS TRUSTEE DUTIES AND UPHELD THE COURT’S IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The trust settler, “decedent” executed a “pour-over” will in which the residuary of his estate was to be held, managed, and distributed according to the trust, which was created in...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Page: 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - All