The trial court concluded that the agreement for a shortened period of limitations was enforceable and determined that the suit was untimely.
An agreement to settle a pending lawsuit constitutes a contract, and therefore the agreement is governed by legal principles applicable to the interpretation and construction of contracts.
On December 22, 2016, plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for the lost sale. They alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, silent fraud, entitlement to exemplary damages, and other claims.
It is a fundamental rule of civil procedure in this state that leave to amend pleadings should be given freely.
The subcontracts written by Defendant and signed by Plaintiff unambiguously contemplated that if any disputes related to their subcontract found their way to a courtroom, a jury would not be impaneled to resolve them.
Despite the Release of Claims unambiguous terms, defendants filed complaints against plaintiffs with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Plaintiffs responded by filing a lawsuit.
Plaintiff and defendant were involved in a romantic relationship, but never married. After the relationship ended, plaintiff sued defendant, seeking repayment for $68,784.50 in payments he claims he made for her living expenses.
Defendant appeals his conviction of unlicensed residential builder. The trial court sentenced to 18 months’ probation, and $6,300 in restitution.
The parties entered into a purchase agreement for the defendants to sell the plaintiffs a parcel of land in exchange for $101,000 and a 1950 pickup truck. The trial court found that defendants wrongfully retained possession of the truck after the...
Thus, it reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. The case arose out of plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits-under a no-fault policy issued by defendant to plaintiff's purported "relative,"...
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...
The court held that when "¶ 4.B of the 2010 MOU is read in its entirety, the paragraph is unambiguous and it does not create the vested right asserted by" plaintiff/counter-defendant-Cass. This was a breach of contract action involving a contract...
The court held that the trial court applied the correct standard of review in granting the defendant-snow removal company summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), and correctly determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief under a...
The trial court did not err in rejecting defendants' claim that plaintiff lacked standing in this breach of contract case. It also did not err in ruling that the Authorization was an enforceable contract, or abuse its discretion in denying...
The court held that the Court of Claims did not err by granting the defendant-university's motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata. The court noted that plaintiff's state claims were "a...
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the defendants-bank and buyer in the plaintiffs-lessees' action to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase the leased property. The bank initiated foreclosure...
Where the plaintiff sued defendant-HSBC Mortgage Services in an attempt to stop HSBC from foreclosing on his property, he could not rely on an LMA to give him a contractual right to an extension of his decreased monthly payment requirements. HSBC...
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to provide any admissible evidence to sufficiently counter the defendants' evidence that they electronically signed the contract for home inspection services, and that the plaintiffs' breach of...
Holding that MCL 554.139 did not apply where the plaintiff was the co-owner of a unit in the condo development, and that he was neither a licensee nor an invitee, the court concluded that he was not owed any duty by the defendants under premises...
The court concluded that the absence of hazing did not preclude defendants-AKA and Nelson (an AKA regional director) from withdrawing plaintiff's membership rights pending an investigation. Further, their promise to conduct a fair investigation...
Concluding that the alleged agreement was not a valid contract, primarily due to a lack of consideration and mutuality of obligation, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims based on the alleged agreement....
The court held that the trial court did not err in finding the cross-defendants-Trajcevski entities (Trajcevski) liable for certain royalties under a land contract and awarding treble damages and attorney fees. Plaintiffs sued the defendants-Furgal...
Concluding that the alleged loan modification was oral, the court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition in plaintiff-Comerica Bank's favor. Comerica sued defendants-Cheryl Maniaci and her company, Prickles, "seeking full...
Holding that the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff's policy fell under § 2827 and thus, the defendant-insurer was "required to remit the policy limits to plaintiff without regard to whether the structure was actually repaired or...
Holding that plaintiff-Auto-Owners did not waive its right to rescind or void the policy, and that it was entitled to rescind the policy even if the misrepresentations were innocent, the court affirmed summary disposition for Auto-Owners. However,...
The court held that the trial court improperly granted the defendants summary disposition on the plaintiffs' malpractice claims and their breach of express warranty claim against defendant-Wright in this case arising from the construction of...
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the defendant (Hrpka) on all of the plaintiff's (Davenport) claims seeking compensation for household services and financial support, except for his unjust...
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the third-party defendant-real estate broker (Sunbay) on defendant-Cottrill's claims alleging negligence and breach of contract. Cottrill hired Sunbay to sell...
The court held that the integration clause in the lease did not make it patently unreasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the alleged pre-contractual representations, and it reversed the trial court's ruling that plaintiff failed to state a claim...
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering defendant-Sam Anthony Tocco (Grandson) to pay $7,500 a month to defendant-Sam Tocco (Grandfather) during the pendency of the litigation. The order was vacated. However, the...
Holding that the subordination clause at issue did not render defendant-Satori's mortgage interest in the property secondary, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Satori's mortgage had priority and was superior to any other party's...
The court held that defendant-Krebs's employment contract was not assigned to plaintiff-GLEI, and that even if it was, under its express language, the initial unauthorized assignment relieved Krebs of all liability and obligations arising under the...
Concluding that the acceptance clause in the purchase agreement created a condition precedent, the court held that pursuant to the precise wording of the clause, the sellers' "approval or disapproval of the land contract had to be related to the...
Plaintiff could not show that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled, and, thus, the trial court did not err in granting defendants-Mercedes-Benz USA and Estate Motors' motion for summary disposition because her claims were barred by the...
The trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff attorney fees and sanctions premised on the defendants' motion for a change of venue in this contract case. The trial court granted the plaintiff $8,400 in sanctions against the defendants and...
The court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that the first element of unjust enrichment "requires a finding that defendant directly benefited from plaintiff, and that the facts of this case did not support such a finding." Thus,...
