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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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...