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).
Accordingly, plaintiffs requested declaratory relief, allowing them to make the proposed modifications to the easement as depicted in the gravel drive improvement plan and prohibiting the defendants from interfering with their maintenance of the easement.
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.
The statute only applies to any surplus money after satisfying the mortgage on which the real estate was sold. Therefore, for the Petitioners to be entitled to anything under MCL 600.3252, the mortgage on the Southfield property must have been satisfied and there must be surplus money remaining after the mortgage is satisfied.
An entity’s bylaws are a contractual agreement between the entity and its members. Condominium association bylaws constitute a binding contractual agreement between the governing entity and its members to the extent that the bylaws do not conflict with or are not inconsistent with state law.
Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.
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.
When a married couple holds real property as tenants by the entirety, neither spouse acting by themselves can alienate or encumber their interest in the property. A husband or wife must receive the consent of their spouse before conveying or encumbering an interest in the property.
When real property has been vacated and physical assets are left behind or abandoned on the property, one who thereafter properly enters the property and maintains possession is not liable in an action for claim and delivery under MCL 600.2920.
In an action arising from an alleged default by a condominium co-owner, a successful association of co-owners shall recover the costs and reasonable attorney fees associated with the action, as determined by the court, to the extent the condominium documents expressly so provide.
The trial court determined that the plat dedication granted an easement to use the park to all of the lot owners and did not grant riparian rights to any lot owners.
Defendant conveyed by quit claim deed the Property to herself and plaintiff as Joint Tenants with Full Rights of Survivorship and not as Tenants in Common. Defendant apparently took this action for purposes of estate planning.
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.
In lieu of an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing essentially that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims related to the Property because plaintiff’s legal interest in the Property was extinguished through properly conducted foreclosure proceedings and the redemption period had expired and that none of plaintiff’s claims had legal merit.
Defendants’ counter-complaint sought a declaration, among other things, that defendants had acquired a legal right to use the Drive as a means to access their property. But defendants did not add the LLC, the owner of the Drive, as a party to their suit. Consequently, the trial court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for easement rights because of the failure to join LLC—a necessary party.
An easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years.
Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the rezoning denial deprived it of its constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition. The briefs largely focused on whether defendant had treated the Property differently from other properties in the downtown area and whether it had legitimate reasons for doing so.
It is a fundamental rule of civil procedure in this state that leave to amend pleadings should be given freely.
Following a bench trial, the circuit court ruled that the seasonal boat hoist was not a structure under the Zoning Ordinance’s definition and therefore its erection did not violate the ordinance. The court rejected Plaintiff’s claim to title by acquiescence and also based on the legal descriptions of the lots. Accordingly, the court quieted title in defendants’ favor.
A claim accrues, and the limitations period begins to run, when the claim may be brought. Here, the breach of contract alleged occurred no earlier than September 2010, when defendants signed a seller’s disclosure statement (SDS) and the parties executed a purchase agreement.
Under Michigan law, parties may acquiesce to a new property boundary line. Acquiescence is established when a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parties treated a particular boundary line as the property line.
The absence of an explicitly stated time for performance or payment does not render a contract invalid or unenforceable. One party’s substantial breach of a contract may relieve the other party of its obligation to perform under the contract. Substantial breach may be found in cases where the breach has effected such a change in essential operative elements of the contract that further performance by the other party is thereby rendered ineffective or impossible.
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.
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.
This letter notified plaintiff that the document that plaintiff provided purporting to establish a commitment for a mortgage was fraudulent and that, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms of the agreement, the agreement was void.
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.
Once the statutory redemption period lapses, courts can only entertain the setting aside of a foreclosure sale where the mortgagor has made a clear showing of fraud, or irregularity.
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 sought to limit the rights of non-riparian lot owners to maintain a dock at the end of a dedicated private road abutting a lake.
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.
This matter arises out of an ongoing dispute between a unit owner in the Condominium, and the Condominium Association.
Under Michigan law, parties may acquiesce to a new property boundary line. Acquiescence is established when a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parties treated a particular boundary line as the property line.
The day after the trial court entered its order, Defendant C quitclaimed his interest in the property to Defendant B, who then sold the property on land contract to new owners.
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.
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.
This case arises out of the sale of residential property. Within a few months of purchase, plaintiffs experienced severe flooding of the house and surrounding property. At one point, there was nearly one foot of standing water in the living room.
On January 6, 2017, Governor Snyder signed into law the package of bills that abolish dower rights in the State of Michigan, however, the bills do apply the right of dower to a surviving widow whose husband passed away prior to the effective date of the bills.
To prevail on a claim of adverse possession, plaintiffs must show that they possessed the disputed property openly, adversely, exclusively, and continuously for at least 15 years. A party making an adverse possession claim can meet the time requirement by tacking their possessory period to that of their predecessors in interest with whom they are in privity of estate.
In instances of trespass where injunctive relief and actual damages are not warranted, a plaintiff nevertheless is entitled to nominal damages. Because a trespass violates a landholder’s right to exclude others from the premises, the landholder could recover at least nominal damages even in the absence of proof of any other injury.
