Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


NANCY L. JACOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v BH ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MITEX PARTNERS, MANDELL L. BERMAN, MORTON HARRIS, DP PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and SUSSEX PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED June 29, 2001

No. 222945 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 99-015103-CK

Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Talbot and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right, challenging the trial court's orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on her claims for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duties. We affirm. We review the trial court's grant of summary disposition de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on pleadings alone. Id. In an action based on a contract, the court may also consider the contract attached to or referenced in the complaint to determine whether a claim has been stated. MCR 2.113(F); Woody v Tamer, 158 Mich App 764, 770; 405 NW2d 213 (1987). All well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted as true. Taylor v Laban, 241 Mich App 449, 451; 616 NW2d 229 (2000). Also, a court may determine the meaning of unambiguous contract language when deciding a motion for summary disposition. See generally SSC Associates Ltd Partnership v General Retirement System of Detroit, 192 Mich App 360, 363; 480 NW2d 275 (1991). Examining the allegations in plaintiff's complaint in conjunction with the assignment and other contract documents that are considered part of the pleadings under MCR 2.113(F), we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff's assigned rights consisted of those specified in

Download NANCY L JACOBSON V BH ASSOC LTD PARTNERSHIP.pdf

Michigan Law