Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

July 2015

Jul 2015
08
July 08, 2015

COA awards attorney fees to summer resort based on bylaws provision contemplating both lien and legal action to collect delinquent dues

In Great Lakes Shores, Inc. v. Bartley, No. 320913, the Court of Appeals awarded plaintiff, a summer resort, attorney fees associated with the legal action to recover delinquent dues from defendant, a lot owner, based on a bylaws provision contemplating both a lien and legal action to collect delinquent dues.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant paid her dues from 2004 through 2009, but then stopped paying.  In December 2012, plaintiff recorded a lien for the unpaid dues and filed suit.  Plaintiff moved for summary disposition, seeking $400 in unpaid dues, $40 in late fees, $574.40 in court costs, and $6,007.29 in attorney fees.  The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion because defendant failed to provide any evidence to contradict plaintiff’s evidence showing that defendant had indeed received invoices for the dues, but declined to award plaintiff attorney fees.  Plaintiff appealed.

Jul 2015
08
July 08, 2015

MSC: E-mail Requesting Increased Settlement Offer is Not Itself an Offer

In Bank of New York Mellon v Jaafar, No. 150957, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and found that an e-mail from Plaintiff’s counsel sent to Defendant’s Counsel requesting an increased settlement offer was not itself an offer. Instead, the Defendant’s response agreeing to raise its previous offer constituted the actual offer for contract purposes. Because this offer was never accepted, the parties were not bound to it.

Jul 2015
08
July 08, 2015

MSC to hear mini-oral argument on the proper standard for reasonable attorney fee determinations in no-fault insurance suits

The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument in Estate of Pirgu v. USAA Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 150834, to hear the issue of whether the determination of reasonable attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1) is governed by Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008), and/or Wood v DAIIE, 413 Mich 573 (1982) and whether the Oakland Circuit Court abused its discretion in calculating the attorney fees due the plaintiff.

Jul 2015
08
July 08, 2015

COA: No clear error where trial court makes findings of fact and evidentiary evaluations under MCR 2.504(B)(2)

In Township of Williamstown v. Hudson, No. 321306, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in evaluating the credibility of the appellant’s evidence and making factual findings, which it was permitted to do under MCR 2.504(B)(2).  The trial court also did not err in holding that Michigan’s Right to Farm Act (RTFA) did not shield appellant’s family farm from conflicting local zoning ordinances.

Jul 2015
07
July 07, 2015

MSC to address the constitutionality of expanded “knock and talk” procedures

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in People v. Radandt, No. 150906, to determine whether police officers unlawfully expanded a “knock and talk” procedure by entering the defendant’s backyard and walking onto a wooden deck.  If the Court finds a constitutional violation did occur, it will also consider whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies under the facts of this case.

Jul 2015
06
July 06, 2015

MSC: Defense counsel ineffective for failing to engage expert to testify regarding victim’s cause of death

In People v Ackley, No. 149479, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the defense counsel’s failure to engage an expert witness to testify on behalf of the defendant as to the cause of the victim’s death, fell below the objective standard of reasonableness where expert testimony was a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. Defendant was convicted of first-degree child abuse and a first-degree felony murder after his girlfriend’s three-year-old daughter died of a head injury while in his care. The prosecution called five experts to testify at trial regarding the cause of the child’s death.

Displaying results 25-30 (of 31)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6  >  >| 

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