Defendant continued to advertise and lease its property for short-term rental. Because plaintiff concluded that defendant used its lot and the home thereon for business purposes, specifically as a rental property, plaintiff filed suit.
Plaintiff acknowledges that the land contract states on its face that the annual interest rate is 7%. But plaintiff argues that a blending approach must be undertaken to account for the surplus funds that defendant received pursuant to the Affidavit of Non-Redemption (AONR).
Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint on December 3, 2019, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and requesting foreclosure of the property. Defendant answered, pleading affirmative defenses, including that the statutes of limitations barred plaintiff’s claims. Defendant moved for summary disposition.
The revocation in this case was executed by the requisite 75% super-majority and it did not subject the property in the industrial park to additional encumbrances.
Regarding the award of attorney fees, Michigan follows the American Rule, which states that attorney fees are not recoverable as an element of costs or damages unless expressly allowed by statute, court rule, common-law exception, or contract.
Although the neighboring landowners testified that they also made similar recreational use of the land west of Creek, the trial court concluded that the B owners use had been more significant and continuous for a longer period.
RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.
Plaintiff’s lot was landlocked. Plaintiff argued his easement to access the highway was a gravel driveway. Defendants argued plaintiff’s easement was a two-track dirt trail that wound through the woods.
The court found that the restrictions, taken as a whole, were clearly in place to create, in part, a uniform western boundary and to preserve lot views, and that the location of the defendants’ home violated both of these clear objectives.
Originally posted on 07/27/2018
Anyone who owns real estate in Michigan has made a valuable investment. Whether you acquire a home, business, or other property, you want to make sure that the transaction works in your favor and all documents...
Without dispute, plaintiffs showed that plaintiffs, defendants, and their predecessors in ownership, treated the historic boundary as the actual property line for the requisite statutory period.
An easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years.
Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...
In October 2017, the circuit court entered an order vacating the district court’s default judgment, and the affidavit of termination of redemption rights, and permitting KN to redeem the property before January 5, 2018.
A party claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent proof of possession that is actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and uninterrupted for the relevant statutory period.
Defendant, EV Condominium Association, denied plaintiff’s record-inspection requests because, according to defendant, the requests did not state a proper purpose. This led plaintiff to file a complaint in the trial court to compel his record inspection requests.
According to plaintiffs, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement through an e-mail exchange between the parties’ respective counsel.
Plaintiff purchased a home in Dearborn Heights, Michigan in 2007 with a mortgage. On February 19, 2019, the lender sent a letter to Plaintiff indicating receipt of her request for mortgage assistance (RMA) and submitted documents. Three days later,...
Defendants are residents of the Subdivision No. 1. Defendants’ lots abut a man-made canal, Channel 1. Plaintiffs are residents of the Park Subdivision, which is located on the other side of Channel 1.
At issue in this case is the extent to...
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.
