Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JANICE LEWIS, individually and as Next Friend of RICHARD LEWIS and JESSICA LEWIS, Minors, Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED December 12, 1997

v JOHN MCKNIGHT, AGNES MCKNIGHT, KATHLEEN HOSKINS, EILISH M. MCKNIGHT, SEAN P. MCKNIGHT, KAREN R. MCKNIGHT, TIMOTHY P. MCKNIGHT, and CANDICE MCKNIGHT, d/b/a MCKNIGHT APARTMENTS, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 197248 Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 95-72849-CH

Before: Young, P.J., and Markman and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right a verdict of no cause of action in a bench trial in this civil rights action. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Plaintiff rented an apartment in defendants' twelve-unit apartment complex.1 On the rental application, plaintiff listed herself and her boyfriend as occupants and crossed out the word "children."2 In June 1994, plaintiff's children moved in with her and her boyfriend. Plaintiff contends that defendants wanted no children occupants because they were attempting to sell the complex. She alleges that in August 1994, Agnes McKnight forbade plaintiff from using the apartment address to enroll her children in the local school. Plaintiff's children lived with their father during the 1994-1995 school year. Plaintiff's boyfriend, Ronald Igoe, testified that in March 1995, he requested that the children be allowed to live in plaintiff's apartment but John McKnight informed him that the children could not return. However, plaintiff's children returned to live with her in June 1995. John McKnight testified that on June 16, 1995, he complained about loud music coming from plaintiff's apartment and saw plaintiff's children starting Igoe's truck. On June 19, 1995, defendants issued plaintiff a notice to quit, which stated that plaintiff's tenancy was being terminated due to "noise disturbance, tenant and property

-1

endangerment, NO CHILDREN were to occupy the apartment per rental agreement." Plaintiff then filed the present

-2

suit alleging, inter alia, that defendants violated provisions of Michigan's Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2502; MSA 3.548(502). Defendants withdrew the notice to quit. In August 1995, plaintiff's son moved in with his father again but her daughter continued to live with plaintiff in the apartment at issue. Plaintiff and her daughter continued to reside there at the time of trial and apparently at the time of this appeal. After a bench trial, the trial court issued a verdict of no cause of action. This Court reviews the findings of fact in an action tried without a jury for clear error. MCR 2.613(C). "A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made." Hofmann v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 211 Mich App 55, 98-99; 535 NW2d 529 (1995). However, the application of a statute to undisputed factual findings is a question of law. This Court reviews questions of law de novo. Oakland Hills Development Corp v Lueders Drainage District , 212 Mich App 284, 294; 537 NW2d 258 (1995). Plaintiff first contends that the notice to quit violated MCL 37.2502(1)(f). Section 502(1)(f) states: (1) A person engaging in a real estate transaction, or a real estate broker or salesman, shall not on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, familial status, or marital status of a person or a person residing with that person: *** (f) Make, print, circulate, post, mail, or otherwise cause to be made or published a statement, advertisement, notice, or sign, or use a form of application for a real estate transaction, or make a record of inquiry in connection with a prospective real estate transaction, which indicates, directly or indirectly, an intent to make a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination with respect to the real estate transaction. Under this subsection, the issue is whether the notice indicates an intent to discriminate. There are three plausible ways to interpret the "NO CHILDREN . . ." language in the notice at issue: 1) that plaintiff was being evicted because she had children; 2) that plaintiff was being evicted because she violated the rental agreement, which prohibited children; or 3) that plaintiff was being evicted because she made a misrepresentation regarding whether children would occupy the premises in her application. The first two interpretations indicate an intent to discriminate and therefore would violate

Download JANICE LEWIS V JOHN MCKNIGHT.pdf

Michigan Law