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.
A license to access a lake is a mere permission to do some act or series of acts on the land without having any permanent interest in it.
Plaintiff purchased a house. The "Bank" foreclosed on the property. Plaintiff approached his uncle, Defendant, and asked him to purchase the property on his behalf from the Bank and then sell the property back to him for the same price...
In 2014, plaintiff purchased a parcel of land ("Parcel C") at a sheriff's sale. Previous owner was the sole owner of the property from 1988 until he lost the property to foreclosure for non-payment of taxes. There is a building on the site, which...
In this property dispute, plaintiffs filed suit against defendant to enforce a prescriptive easement that allows plaintiffs to place and use a seasonal dock.Plaintiffs are the successors in interest to plaintiff's mother, who acquired the property...
Holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the option to purchase was specifically assigned and whether it was for the land or the land and the restaurant on the property, the court reversed the trial court's grant of...
Noting that the requirement of a loan modification process only applies to foreclosure by advertisement, the court rejected the defendant-borrower's argument that once the plaintiff started the loan modification process, it was barred from...
The court held that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff-condominium association's motion for summary disposition and properly granted the defendant-property owner's motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff sued defendant seeking to...
Holding that the plaintiff's reliance on MCL 565.29 was misplaced and that MCL 600.3241a had no relationship to the case, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants summary disposition in this action arising from a...
he trial court did not violate the defendant-Association's due process rights when it sua sponte decided to construe the plattors' intent. However, upon review of the plat and the plat survey, the court held that the trial court erred in finding...
Holding that the plaintiff-appellant failed to show that the release language in the real estate purchase agreement was invalid, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendants-real estate agents and agency summary disposition on...
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the defendant in this action involving an easement across the plaintiff-trustee's property. Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest executed a land contract in 1970,...
The court held that the plaintiff-bank's (Capital One) foreclosure claim survived the parties' case evaluation acceptance and thus, the trial court did not err in considering Capital One's summary disposition motion following the evaluation award....
