Under Section 3107(1)(b) of the No-Fault Act, insurers are liable for benefits consisting of “the loss of income from work.” In Brown v. Home Owners Insurance Company, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the profits generated by an S corporation should be included when calculating the work loss benefits payable under that section, MCL § 500.3107(1)(b).
On January 19, 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Woodbury v. Res-Care Premier, Inc., No. 297819. Defendant Res-Care Premier, Inc. contracted to purchase a home from Defendant Ruth Averill in 2009. The homeowners in Averill’s subdivision had entered into an agreement that required homeowners to offer the homeowners’ association, Plaintiff Center Woods, Inc., 30-day notice of any home sale and a right of first refusal. Averill had not provided this notice. However, Center Woods had failed to file its annual statements or pay its annual fees in 1992 and 1993, causing the corporation to be dissolved under MCL 450.2922. Nonetheless, the trial court granted the plaintiffs summary disposition; it invalidated the sale because Averill had not complied with the notice and refusal provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Averill was not required to give notice to a dissolved corporation.
In Estate of DeGoede v Comerica Bank, No. 296129, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations did not bar a plaintiff’s claim against a bank for failing to honor three certificates of deposit (CDs), reasoning that “the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a demand for payment has been made” and rejecting the defendant’s argument that the statute of limitations begins to run when a CD matures. Read more »
In Florence Cement Co. v. Vettriano, the Court of Appeals determined that a limited liability company’s corporate veil should have been pierced because its members failed to treat it as a separate entity, as evidenced by its and its member’s finances.
On Tuesday, March 8, the Court of Appeals decided PCS4LESS, LLC & Wholesale Cellutions v Stockton et al, No. 296870. The Court held that even where an individual may be criminally implicated, a business cannot refused to produce information or make a statement on the basis of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination. Read more »
Plaintiff alleged that her ex-husband tried to defraud her of money owed to her as part of the property settlement and attorney fees awarded in the couple’s divorce judgment, by concealing income in a corporation coowned by defendant and his brother. In October 2008, the trial court had entered a divorce judgment that had awarded plaintiff a $50,000 property settlement and $40,000 in attorney fees. In March 2010, after less drastic methods were employed without success, the trial court appointed a receiver to preserve funds and property that could be used to satisfy defendant’s debt to the plaintiff from the divorce judgment. In Shouneyia v Shouneyia, No. 297007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s appointment of a receiver but instructed the trial court to add the corporation as a party to this case.
On November 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals approved its earlier September per curiam opinion in Dutton Partners LLC v CMS Energy Corp, No. 292094, for publication. In this case, the trial court had denied CMS Energy’s motions for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff had sued the wrong party for damages arising out of a natural gas explosion from a pipeline owned and operated by CMS subsidiary, Consumers Energy. Plaintiff argued that Consumers was merely the “alter-ego” of CMS, and the trial court found there was an issue of fact as to whether Consumers was a mere “instumentality” of CMS, and denied the motions. The Court of Appeals agreed that there was a question of fact on that issue, but concluded that CMS was still entitled to summary disposition. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that an additional showing of fraud, wrongdoing or misuse of the corporate form is necessary to sustain an alter-ego argument. Here, plaintiff did not point to any such evidence of malfeasance. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for an entry of judgment in favor of CMS.
In this breach of a lease agreement action, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant corporation Empower and individual defendants Troy and Phyllis, the owners of Empower. In Lakeview Commons LP v Empower Yourself, LLC, No. 291728, published after release on November 9, 2010, the Court of Appeals concluded that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Hamsa, an LLC, is the mere continuation of Empower. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the issue of whether the corporate veil of Empower and Hamsa should be pierced to hold Troy and Phyllis personally liable, because the Court of Appeals determined that the corporate forms of the entities were followed.
On April 13, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued for publication a per curiam opinion in Duray Development, LLC v. Perrin, No. 287722, holding that, under the de facto corporation doctrine, Outlaw LLC, and not its owner Perrin, was bound by the contract with Duray. It therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment against Perrin. The Court also reviewed the trial court’s failure to sua sponte raise the issue of corporation by estoppel but found no plain error. Finally, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision to sanction defendants for not timely filing a witness list by precluding them from offering Perrin as a witness at trial. The trial court should have first considered all relevant factors and other sanction options before exercising its discretion to enter such a heavy sanction. Read more »
On September 8, 2009, the Court of Appeals published an opinion in Flint Cold Storage v. Michigan Department of Treasury, No. 286921, in a decision written by Judge Jansen. The Court affirmed a grant of summary disposition to the Treasury Department on the basis that Flint Cold Storage lacked capacity to sue, and therefore could not maintain an action to recover unclaimed property held by the Treasury. The opinion can be found here. Read more »
The WNJ Appellate Practice Group is one of the State’s premier appellate litigation practices. Our attorneys recently obtained an 8-1 victory in the United States Supreme Court, and have appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court more than 15 times. WNJ has also litigated in nearly every federal Circuit, recently argued in the Michigan Supreme Court, and participated in numerous Michigan Court of Appeals cases. The Appellate Practice Group has repeatedly achieved successful results for both parties and amicus curiae, and has been awarded the Distinguished Brief Award three times in the past four years for filing the most persuasive and scholarly brief in the Michigan Supreme Court. For more information, please visit our website.
Elinor Jordan
Gaetan Gerville-Reache
Jason Byrne
Kristina Araya
Madelaine Lane
Matthew Nelson
Nicole Mazzocco
Sarah Lindsey
Sarah Riley Howard