Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results

This dispute between neighbors deals with drainage. Both sides complain that surface water pools on their land and that the opposing party is responsible.

The trial court determined, based on documentary evidence provided by the parties, that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, but was instead comprised of former members of the Church that had joined an affiliated, but legally distinct church.

The First Amendment was ratified by the requisite two-thirds of Association voters and was recorded with the Wayne County Register of Deeds in October 2018. Developer did not approve the First Amendment.

Under Michigan law, owners of adjacent property may acquiesce to a property line other than the legal property line by treating a particular boundary as the property line.

More than five years later, plaintiff initiated a three-count complaint for breach of the right-of-first-refusal agreement, quiet title, and declaratory relief.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

Defendant argued that plaintiff does not have authority to foreclose on his property solely because of unpaid fines.

Defendant developed the Stone Valley Development, a residential development, and conveyed to plaintiffs by warranty deeds Lots 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. The Stone Valley Development is subject to a Declaration of Easements and Restrictive Covenants (DERC)...

BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ suit primarily alleges that defendant is conducting rental activity on its property in violation of the Manchester Township Zoning Ordinance (MTZO). Plaintiffs requested an order enjoining defendant from operating a...

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

BACKGROUND Many of the facts are undisputed. In November 2007, Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with Plaintiff, in which Defendant agreed to lend Plaintiff $500,000 secured by certain real property located in Livingston County. Both...

BACKGROUND On  May 5,  2014, the parties entered into a land contract for the sale of  real property from defendant to plaintiff. In the land contract, plaintiff...

BACKGROUND The Court needed to determine the actual extent of an easement for a drain that runs across the southern edge of the plaintiff’s property. The releases at issue conveyed rights to fifty-foot strips of land on either side of the...

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

In June 2012, plaintiff purchased real property in Michigan. Over a year later plaintiff was arrested on federal charges related to drug trafficking. Since his arrest, plaintiff has remained incarcerated. During his first week in jail, he was...

This action for breach of contract, negligence, and abuse of process arises from the construction of a home. Failure to Pay Property Taxes During the construction, plaintiff failed to pay the property taxes, and the county foreclosed on the...

This case concerns the enforceability of an amended condominium bylaw prohibiting short-term rentals where such rentals had been expressly contemplated and allowed under an existing 15-year contract between the owner of a condominium unit and a...

Plaintiffs purchased a home in Michigan. At the time of the sale, the owners of the home, defendants, had been suffering from dementia for several months and were living in assisted-living facilities. Their daughter, defendant L, as their power of...

The Plaintiffs purchased the property in question in 1992. The property is zoned C-1, commercial district, and may be used for retail sales of goods and services. From 1992 to 2006, the Plaintiffs operated a ceramics shop in the commercial building...

The question presented by the case is whether the operation of a MMCC at this location complies with Section 61-3-354(b)(1) of the Detroit Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits the BSEED from approving any request for a MMCC where located within a drug-free zone.

At issue is whether the color bar and reception desk were the Salon’s trade fixtures. The court found that SOF owned the color bar and reception desk because they were fixtures attached to the premises.

In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon the 2013 warranty deed documents that twice expressly provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement. Review of the 2005 Amendment demonstrated that every aspect of the Original Easement was expressly repeated, modified, or omitted. Nothing in the language of the 2005 Amendment suggests that it is intended to be read in conjunction with the Original Easement.

Defendant’s legal position is that the option to buy expired at midnight on April 22, 2017, and the lack of any tender of payment by that time means the option expired and plaintiff forfeited all rights to the property.

Plaintiff and defendants agree that there was no writing in this case. Thus, the agreement’s terms determine whether it falls within the statute of frauds.

Governmental entities are generally immune from tort liability. A governmental entity can only be subject to suit if a plaintiff’s case falls within a statutory exception. As such, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to impose liability on a governmental agency to demonstrate that its case falls within one of the exceptions.

The second amendment to the lease was not provided to plaintiff during the negotiations.

Creating a mutually beneficial real estate deal usually goes through smoothly with both sides presenting their interests then negotiating toward a middle ground they can both agree to uphold. Unfortunately, not all deals go through without an issue....

The party claiming a prescriptive easement has the burden of establishing entitlement to the prescriptive easement by clear and cogent evidence. An easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years.

Even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the deeds make it clear that neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors ever had an ownership interest in the western 10 feet of Lot 56.

A party may file a third-party claim as of right within 21 days after his or her original answer is due. Otherwise, leave on motion with notice to all parties is required.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

MCL 566.132(2) provides an action shall not be brought against a financial institution to enforce any of the following promises or commitments of the financial institution unless the promise or commitment is in writing and signed with an authorized signature by the financial institution.

Plaintiffs took possession of the property on or about May 1, 2017. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs contacted the Defendants and asked for certain fixtures to be returned. The Defendants refused, stating that the fixtures were not part of the sale.

The trial court held that in the absence of a written agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to have the house conveyed to her because an oral agreement to transfer the house was barred by the statute of frauds. The trial court entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s claim for quiet title to the house and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.

Defendant contends that LLC did not provide him with adequate notice of its claim for possession

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.

A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) should be granted if the evidence submitted by the parties fails to establish a genuine issue of a material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the claims against the realty companies were barred by the valid release contained in the purchase agreement and that the claims against sellers were required to be resolved in arbitration because they fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.

When the statutory requirements for mortgage foreclosure are met, a trial court generally lacks authority to set aside a foreclosure sale except in a strong case of fraud or irregularity.