Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MICHAEL HOROWITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v BURTON FARBMAN and MARTIN STONEMAN, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF LEON D. STEIN, a/k/a LEE D. STEIN, Deceased, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED March 30, 2001

No. 219850 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 98-007692-CK

Before: Markey, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals by right from the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. We affirm. I Facts Defendant Burton Farbman and Leon Stein established a partnership, Fernine Associates, by an agreement dated May 4, 1981. The business of the partnership concerned the purchase and management of certain real property in Ferndale. A second document executed that same day recognized plaintiff as joining in the venture as a partner of equal interest. After a fourth such partner sold his interest to the remaining three, each remaining partner owned a one-third interest in the partnership. Leon Stein died, and his interest in the partnership transferred to defendant Martin Stoneman acting as personal representative of the estate. Farbman, over plaintiff's objections, purchased Stein's interest from Stein's estate, leaving Farbman with a two-third's interest and plaintiff with a one-third interest. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that defendants' transaction was in breach of the partnership agreement, as well as their fiduciary duties to plaintiff. Defendant moved the trial court for summary disposition, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and (C)(10) (no question of material fact). The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff now appeals. -1

II Holding This Court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo as a question of law. Ardt v Titan Ins Co, 233 Mich App 685, 688; 593 NW2d 215 (1999). In this case, the trial court ruled that plaintiff's pleadings had succeeded in stating a legally cognizable claim, thereby indicating that the court denied defendants' motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Thus, we will review the court's decision under principles applicable to a (C)(10) motion. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff's claim. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). The court considers the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted in the action in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. A. Contract This appeal hinges primarily on the question of whether the trial court correctly interpreted

Download MICHAEL HOROWITZ V BURTON FARBMAN.pdf

Michigan Law