734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

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

 

 

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...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

DIVORCE 45: Federal law preempts state law such that the parties’ consent judgment is unenforceable to the extent that it required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reduction in the amount payable to her due to his election to receive CRSC

BACKGROUND This case involves a dispute between former spouses who entered into a consent judgment of divorce (the consent judgment), which provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 50% of his military retirement benefits. Beyond that, the...

How to Choose a Criminal Defense Lawyer for a DUI

No one wants to be arrested, and if you are, especially for the first time, you can be very confused. Being arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) - formerly Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)...

What does Client and Attorney Privilege Mean?

How much should you tell your lawyer? The fifth amendment protects U.S. citizens from incriminating themselves, but how does that work with your attorney. We get this question all the time. Many people have heard about attorney confidentiality,...

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