Skip to main content

One Court of Justice Blog

Dec 2016
12
December 12, 2016

MSC grants MOAA on whether award of attorney fees should have been decided by trial court or jury

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted a mini-oral argument on the question of whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees following a postjudgment hearing rather than submitting the attorney fee issue to the jury.
 
In
Power Play International v. Reddy, No. 154347, the plaintiffs sued to enforce a 2008 settlement agreement between the parties.  That agreement provided in part that the prevailing party in an action to enforce the agreement would be entitled to recover associated attorney fees.  The plaintiffs prevailed on summary disposition regarding defendants’ liability for breach of the settlement agreement, and the jury awarded plaintiffs damages of $3,000,000.  The trial court held an evidentiary hearing regarding the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ attorney fees, and ultimately ordered defendants to pay fees of $80,765.

Jul 2016
28
July 28, 2016

COA: Question of fact existed as to whether title insurer participated in a fraudulent scheme with bank’s funds

In the consolidated cases of Bank of America v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Nos. 311798, 312426, 313797, 316538, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary disposition to Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. (FNTIC) regarding Bank of America’s (BOA) breach of contract claims.  The cases arose from allegations of mortgage fraud against BOA, resulting in BOA filing breach of contract claims against its title insurer, FNTIC.  FNTIC had previously issued closing protection letters that promised to indemnify BOA for any actual losses arising from fraud or dishonesty in handling BOA’s funds or documents.  The trial court granted summary disposition to FNTIC on BOA’s breach of contract claims in each underlying action. 

Jun 2016
15
June 15, 2016

COA holds that members of the Parole and Commutation Board do not have vested contractual rights to hold their positions

In Aguirre v. Dep't of Corrections, No. 327022, the Court of Appeals held that appointments to public office do not create a contractual right to hold that office, and when an office is abolished, or an officer lawfully removed, he or she is not entitled to payment for future services which would have been rendered but for the elimination of the office.

Displaying results 1-6 (of 98)
 |<  < 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset