The trial court erred in finding that the alleged land contract violated the SOF because it lacked the defendant-son's signature and that defendants should be permitted to amend their complaint.

The case arose from a long-simmering disagreement between the father and his son as to a 10-acre parcel of property. On appeal, defendants argued that the trial court erred in granting the father's motion for summary disposition and abused its discretion by refusing their request for leave to amend their counterclaim. They contended that the trial court erroneously found that the contract violated the SOF. They asserted that the SOF did not require the "son's signature on the purchase agreement and that the agreement was otherwise a valid land contract." The court concluded that "a contract for the sale of land must, to survive a challenge under" the SOF, "(1) be in writing and (2) be signed by the seller or someone lawfully authorized by the seller in writing." Thus, the purchase agreement satisfied the SOF. "The handwritten agreement, which son provided as an attachment to his answer and counterclaim, was unquestionably in writing and was signed by father, the seller." The SOF required nothing more. Thus, the trial court erred in concluding that the land contract violated the SOF on the basis it lacked the son's signature. The court declined to decide the parties' additional arguments relating to the land contract, and remanded for further consideration. It affirmed the dismissal of defendants' adverse possession claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.