Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 6: Complaint against defendants for a violation of the anti-lockout statute.

This case arises from defendants’ actions in removing plaintiff and his personal belongings from the rental property, on two occasions, without resort to summary proceedings in the court.

In 2008, plaintiff entered into a month-to-month tenancy with the property owner and resided in the apartment unit thereafter. The property owner lost the property to a tax foreclosure in 2015. Defendant purchased the property at an annual tax auction in the fall of 2015. After the purchase, defendants sent a letter of ownership to all occupants of the property, including plaintiff, which gave plaintiff 10 days to vacate the property. Thereafter, defendant came to plaintiff’s unit and demanded that he vacate within 3 days.

When plaintiff did not vacate the premises, defendants came to the property and removed plaintiff’s personal belongings from his unit. After defendants left, plaintiff returned to the property, purchased and installed a new lock on his door, repaired the door, and placed his personal belongings back into his unit. The next day, defendants returned and once again, removed plaintiff’s possession from the property.

Plaintiff filed a six-count complaint against defendants for a violation of the anti-lockout statute, injunctive relief for illegal lockout, conversion, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for exemplary damages.

The Michigan anti-lockout statute, MCL 600.2918, virtually eliminates the self-help remedy in Michigan in favor of judicial process to remove a tenant wrongfully in possession. The statute prohibits forceful self-help regardless of whether or not the tenant was in rightful possession of the premises. Although plaintiff admitted, and the trial court found, that he had not paid rent for seven months before eviction, non-payment of rent, standing alone, is insufficient to exercise self-help under the statute. It must be accompanied with a good-faith belief that the tenant has abandoned the property.

The appeals court held that the trial court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint was erroneous. The trial court also failed to explore the adequacy of the notice to quit and whether the oral and written demand to quit constitutes a legal notice under the law. Although plaintiff alleged that he received a letter from defendant informing him that it was the owner of the property and giving him 10 days to vacate the property, this notice was insufficient as a one month’s notice to quit is required to terminate a month-to month tenancy.

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 dispute, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services


Refusing A Blood Alcohol Test in Michigan

In the state of Michigan, the law requires you to take either a blood, breath or urine test if arrested for an OWI. Michigan has an “implied consent” law which states that if someone lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause...

Do Background Checks Show Misdemeanors?

  Misdemeanors are often considered a less serious criminal offense compared to their felony counterpart. Common misdemeanors include reckless driving, petty theft, public intoxication, trespassing and more. Although misdemeanors don’t...

REAL ESTATE 11: Homeowner association wins in paint color dispute.

Under this section, a homeowner must seek prior approval from the Association before he or she can change the exterior color of his or her home. If that requirement is violated, the Association is entitled to have the color changed and the home repainted a different color at the homeowner’s expense.

REAL ESTATE 7: Even without an express contract, there can be an implied contract.

Contracts can be divided into two categories: express contracts and implied contracts. An express contract is one where the intention of the parties and the terms of the agreement are declared or expressed by the parties, in writing or orally. Alternatively, a contract may be implied from the conduct of the parties, language used or things done by them, or other pertinent circumstances attending the transaction.

PROBATE 2: Can you remove a guardian that holds power of attorney?

Under the EPIC, a “suitable” guardian is one who is qualified and able to provide for the ward’s care, custody, and control. When a preponderance of the evidence weighs against the suitability of the ward’s current choice for guardian, the probate court must remove that person as guardian.

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