Now Accepting New Clients!

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


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.


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. 


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.


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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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