Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PATRIC GUZIKOWSKI, Plaintiff, and WHITE RIVER RESOURCES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED May17, 2007

v MICHIGAN PROPERTIES, INC., JAMES D. LEIMBACH, SHELDON CHRISTENSEN, and CAROLE K. CHRISTENSEN, Defendants, and THOMAS W. LANE, Defendant-Cross-Defendant, and SOUHEGAN RIVER ASSOCIATES, Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff, and RANDALL DECHER and CONNIE DECHER, Defendants/Cross-DefendantsAppellants, and

No. 265010 Manistee Circuit Court LC No. 98-008907-CH

-1-


CLARA J. LANE, deceased, Cross-Defendant.

THOMAS W. LANE, Plaintiff/Third-Party-DefendantAppellee, v SOUHEGAN RIVER ASSOCIATES, Defendant-Appellee, and JAMES D. LEIMBACH, Defendant, and RANDALL DECHER and CONNIE DECHER, Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants. No. 265011 Manistee Circuit Court LC No. 98-008922-CH

RANDALL DECHER and CONNIE DECHER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v THOMAS W. LANE and SOUHEGAN RIVER ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees. No. 265012 Manistee Circuit Court LC No. 98-008973-CH

Before: Schuette, P.J., and O'Connell and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM.

-2-

In these consolidated appeals, Randall and Connie Decher appeal as of right from the order quieting title in favor of White River Resources Group, Inc. (WRRG) concerning certain parcels of land known as parcels B and C. We affirm. I. FACTS In a prior appeal, this Court remanded for the trial court to make certain factual determinations before deciding whether the Dechers, as offerors, had a valid claim under the purchase agreement concerning parcels B and C with Thomas and Clara Lane, the offerees. White River Dev Group, LCC, [sic] v Souhegan River Assoc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 29, 2003 (Docket No. 234972), slip op p 3. At that time, the Lanes had transferred their interest in parcels B and C, and the panel, along with the parties actively involved in the litigation, were apparently unaware that the Lanes had filed for and been discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On remand, the trial court granted WRRG summary disposition, concluding that the Dechers' potential claim could not be pursued against WRRG, which had acquired an interest in parcels B and C during the course of this litigation, because the Dechers did not have a viable theory to hold WRRG liable for the breach of the purchase agreement between themselves and the Lanes. The Dechers now appeal. II. SUMMARY DISPOSITION The Dechers argue that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of WRRG. We disagree. A. Standard of Review A trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Collins v Comerica Bank, 468 Mich 628, 631; 664 NW2d 713 (2003). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). Summary disposition should be granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Babula v Robertson, 212 Mich App 45, 48; 536 NW2d 834 (1995). A genuine issue of material fact exists when, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, the record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). When deciding such a motion, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Corley, supra at 278. B. Analysis While acknowledging that they are unable to pursue their potential claim against the Lanes because that claim was discharged in bankruptcy, the Dechers first rely on bankruptcy statute 11 USC 524(e), which provides as follows: "Except as provided in subsection (a)(3) of this section, discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt." A "debt" is defined as the "liability on a claim." 11 USC 101(12). Accordingly, the Dechers' reliance on 11 USC 524(e) is misplaced because it had yet to be determined whether their claim against the Lanes was viable, i.e. -3-


whether the Lanes were liable. Therefore, because

Download RANDALL DECHER V THOMAS W LANE.pdf

Michigan Law