MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Litigation category:
REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.
Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).
The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.
LITIGATION 5: The trial court properly relied on defense counsel’s representation because an attorney speaks for his client.
The trial court then entered an order settling the consent judgment, which stated that the parties stipulated, on the record, to settle plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claim for $10,000, and that the settlement was approved by defendant’s city council.
Defendants completed the project. Plaintiff did not pay for any of the costs of the project. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to pay one-half of the costs under the agreement. Plaintiff responded that defendants had materially breached the agreement in several ways, including by denying her the right to supervise the project, by refusing to give her an installation schedule, and by starting work before plaintiff approved of the start date.
REAL ESTATE 31: Bank agreed to not proceed with foreclosure if defendant made modified loan payments.
In May 2015, Bank A and defendant entered into an agreement (the Trial Plan), temporarily modifying the loan. Bank A agreed to not proceed with a foreclosure sale if defendant made payments of $1,382.62 for three months.
The arbitrator stated that the award document had not included any amount for case-evaluation sanctions and that, in fact, he had not even known the results of the case evaluation until after issuance of the awards.
BUSINESS LAW 9: The open term “best efforts” did not prevent an agreement from being formed due to a lack of a meeting of the minds.
If defendant was concerned about placing any limitations on the performance necessary to satisfy this obligation, he should have included that limitation in the agreement.
At arbitration, plaintiff presented a counter claim and alleged that defendant had abandoned the contract, leaving significant portions of the commercial building uncompleted, and further, refused to return to complete the work or perform corrective work.
When an employer terminates its pension plan, ERISA liability does not end with the company that actually promised pension payments. Instead, a trade or business under common control of the employer is treated as part of the employer and so incurs liability under ERISA.
Plaintiff primarily contends that the arbitration panel’s majority incorrectly found that plaintiff bore the burden of proof.
REAL ESTATE 17: To sustain a breach of contract, plaintiff must show that the other party breached the contract, not that it will breach the contract.
Plaintiff failed to properly allege a cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief necessarily fails. An injunction is an equitable remedy rather than an independent cause of action. It is not the remedy that supports the cause of action, but rather the cause of action that supports a remedy. Thus, without a cause of action, injunctive relief is not warranted, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff further injunctive relief.
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.
The making of repairs and improvements necessary to the effective enjoyment of an easement is incidental to and part of the easement. Improvements, however, receive closer scrutiny than repairs.
It is not enough for a defendant to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to the Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his/her claims and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his/her position.
If a party fails to comply with a court order, upon motion by an opposing party, the court may enter a default against the noncomplying party.
An easement may be lost through abandonment. An easement is abandoned when the owner of the easement relinquishes it with the intention of releasing his or her right to the easement. Nonuse of the easement alone does not result in abandonment of the easement.
Defendant appeals his conviction of unlicensed residential builder. The trial court sentenced to 18 months’ probation, and $6,300 in restitution.
Holding that the uneven pavement on which the plaintiff tripped and fell was open and obvious as a matter of law, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant summary disposition in this premises liability action.
Plaintiff fell when exiting defendant's store, tripping on "what she described as 'uneven' pavement." The court noted that she made no effort "to identify any unique circumstances that would render such an open and obvious condition unreasonably...
Agreeing with defendant-Allstate that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff-Ruben's motion for relief from the final judgment's no-appeal provision, the court vacated the portion of the order granting Ruben relief, and remanded.
Intervening plaintiff-Badgett was entitled to no-fault benefits from Allstate. After a "jury trial involving a dispute over Ruben's charges to Allstate for medical services and products provided to Badgett, the parties entered into a final judgment...