Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

GREGG MAYES, Personal Representative of the Estate of WALTER MAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, V LEONARD CHARLES MATTHEWS IV, KATINA KAY MATTHEWS, and LISA J. SMITH-ADDISS, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED November 29, 2011

No. 298355 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 09-001221-CH

Before: SAAD, P.J., and JANSEN and DONOFRIO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals the trial court's order that granted summary disposition to defendants. The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for foreclosure on the ground that the parties' land contract only provided for forfeiture as a remedy. Plaintiff argues that the contract does not limit his remedies and that foreclosure is available as a remedy for breach of a land contract regardless of whether it is specifically mentioned in the contract. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2005, decedent Walter Mayes entered into a land contract with Leonard and Katina Matthews for the sale of Mayes's property. Under the contract, Mayes received a down payment of $2,500 and the Matthewses agreed to pay $1,000 per month toward the total purchase price of $85,000, with the balance of the contract due by November 3, 2007. The contract also included the following default provision: If purchaser defaults . . . seller may give purchaser or the person holding possession under him written notice of forfeiture of this contract in the manner prescribed by law. If the default is not cured within such time as is permitted by law, said contract shall be forfeited to seller, all payments made on said contract shall belong to seller as stipulated damages for breach of said contract and purchaser and all persons holding possession under him shall be liable to be removed from possession of the premises in any manner provided by law. -1-

The Matthewses stopped making payments on the contract in October 2006. In December 2006, the Matthewses assigned their interest to Lisa Smith-Addiss, who also failed to make her payments. In July 2009, Mayes notified Smith-Addiss and the Matthewses by letter that the land contract was in arrears. The letter listed the numerous missed payments and stated that defendants must pay the total amount due under the contract within 15 days or Mayes would initiate foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, Mayes filed his complaint for foreclosure. Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10). They argued that because the contract did not specify foreclosure as a remedy, Mayes could not foreclose as a result of their default. The trial court agreed with defendants and granted their motion for summary disposition. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Joliet v Pitoniak, 475 Mich 30, 35; 715 NW2d 60 (2006). When reviewing a motion under 2.116(C)(10), we consider "the pleadings, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545, 551

Download ESTATE OF WALTER MAYES V LEONARD CHARLES MATTHEWS IV.pdf

Michigan Law