Attorney: Michael J. Weikert
Location: Washtenaw County Circuit Court
Date: November 2011 |
Litigation attorney Michael Weikert obtained a victory for his auto dealer client by fighting a claim that would have resulted in the dealership being unable to obtain a newly awarded Dodge franchise from Chrysler.
The plaintiff argued that under recent changes to the Michigan Motor Vehicle Dealer Franchise Act, it was entitled to notice from Chrysler and an opportunity to object because the Dodge franchise awarded to Weikert’s client would be within its relevant market area. The definition of relevant market area was changed from 6 miles to 9 miles in the amendment to the Franchise Act. The change in definition resulted in the awarded Dodge franchise being within the plaintiff’s relevant market area. The awarded Dodge franchise was not within the plaintiff’s relevant market area prior to the amendment to the statute and at the point in time in which Chrysler and Weikert’s client entered into a contract for the award of the franchise.
Weikert argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to notice or an opportunity to object to the award of the Dodge franchise to his client. Specifically, Weikert argued that amendments to a statute cannot be applied retroactively to upset vested contract rights that existed prior to the amendment.
The Washtenaw County Circuit Court agreed with Weikert’s analysis and granted Summary Disposition in favor of Chrysler and Weikert’s client, paving the way for it to receive the award of the Dodge franchise involved. This is a case of first impression and a similar case is pending in federal court involving Kia and two Kia franchises. |
Attorney: Raymond L. Morrow
Location: Oakland County Circuit Court
Date: July 2011 |
| Morrow was successful in securing a complete dismissal of a lawsuit brought in Oakland County Circuit Court against a client, who had previously been president of the company that sued him, after the client resigned and went into competition with his former employer. The lawsuit was for breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, interference with business relationships, defamation and conspiracy. The Plaintiff company sought more than one million dollars in damages, but as a result of the dismissal, recovered nothing. |
Attorney: Lawrence G. Snyder
Location: Michigan Court of Appeals
Date: April 2011 |
| Snyder obtained a reversal of a Macomb County Probate ruling in May vs. AAA. In a published opinion Snyder set the insurance industry on its ear commanding them to pay all reasonable fiduciary fees in no fault cases and stop forcing cases to court. |
Attorney: Andrew J. Goldberg
Location: Michigan Tax Tribunal
Date: February 2011 |
City of Detroit was ordered to refund over $100,000, plus interest, in over-collected property taxes to Goldberg’s client. Goldberg and his client won a reversal of a City of Detroit ruling that a specific property transfer resulted in an uncapping of property tax assessment.
|
Attorney: Richard D. Bisio
Location: Michigan Tax Tribunal
Date: December 16, 2010 |
| The Michigan Tax Tribunal, Michigan’s tax court, is overwhelmed with thousands of cases and has a two to three-year backlog. One of the ways it disposes of cases without a hearing is by putting a party in default for not complying with various rules and then dismissing the case if the party does not promptly cure the violation. This happened to one of our clients, who was ordered to provide the Department of Treasury assessment numbers of the tax assessments being appealed. Our client couldn’t timely provide the numbers because it didn’t receive the assessment notices that the department claimed it mailed. The tribunal dismissed the case. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the tax tribunal can’t just dismiss a case for noncompliance with the rules but must consider the following factors: “(1) whether the violation was willful or accidental; (2) the party's history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.” These are the same factors that a circuit court must consider before dismissing a case for noncompliance with rules or orders. The tribunal must now give “careful consideration” to these factors and consider all its options in deciding what sanction is proper for noncompliance with a rule or order. This published opinion is the first opinion that applies these factors to the tax tribunal and should curtail the tribunal’s practice of summary dismissals without explanation. In our case, the court of appeals held that the tax tribunal abused its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to provide the assessment numbers that our client did not have and ordered the case reinstated. |
Attorney: Brian H. Rolfe
Location: Macomb County Circuit Court
Date: May 2010 |
Obtained dismissal of $840,000.00 breach of contract claim related to a Supply Agreement.
|
Attorney: Brian H. Rolfe and Faith M. Gaudaen
Location: Wayne County
Date: December 2009 |
| $2.85 million global settlement in client’s favor for multiple breach of contract claims. |
Attorney: Brian H. Rolfe
Location: Saginaw County
Date: March 2009 |
| Client was awarded $145,000 on breach of contract claim. |
Attorney: Brian H. Rolfe
Location: Macomb County
Date: December 2008 |
Jury trial resolved in verdict. Claim was limited to less than 20% of the amount the Plaintiff was originally seeking.
|
Attorney: Brian H. Rolfe
Location: Macomb County
Date: Fall 2008 |
| Client was awarded $30,000 on breach of contract, interference with business and contractual relationships claims. |
Attorneys: Raymond L. Morrow and Ronald S. Nixon
Location: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: 2008 |
The Michigan Supreme Court agreed with Morrow and Nixon by ruling that a local city’s installation of a fenced, off-leash dog run on a lot owned by the city (but located within a platted subdivision bordering the city in which all lots were subject to a “strictly residential use” deed restriction) was a violation of that restriction.
The Supreme Court ruled that the “dog park” use was substantially more offensive than any prior uses of the lot. So, the court ruled, the subdivision association which had filed suit to enforce the deed restriction for the benefit of its residents had therefore not waived its right to complain about the new, threatened, more serious use. |
Attorney: Richard D. Bisio
Location: Michigan Court of Appeals
Date: September 27, 2007 |
Constructive notice doctrine clarified in Adams v. Adams, et al.
In a published opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed itself on reconsideration and held that the statute of limitations on a quiet title action starts running only when the owner of real property has actual notice of the recording of an adverse deed. The Michigan Court of Appeals reconsidered its opinion in this case when Kemp Klein attorney, Bisio, showed that a body of case law prohibits a fraudulently procured deed from transferring title. The original opinion, which held that the statute started running against an owner when a deed is recorded regardless of the owner’s actual knowledge, had far-reaching consequences which could have required all property owners in Michigan to periodically check their title to make sure an improper instrument had not been recorded without their knowledge.
Bisio was successful in getting the Court to rule that constructive notice does not occur until the property owner first receives notice of recording of an adverse deed. Under the Court’s original opinion, the clock on the statute of limitations would start ticking when a deed transferring title is properly recorded. In the Adams case, that was 17 years ago. Our client, however, had no idea the adverse deed existed until 2005 and believed that the papers she signed at her husband’s direction were merely loan documents, not a deed transferring her interest. In a rare action, the Court vacated its original published opinion and completely reversed the result based on our arguments and those of the State Bar Real Property Section, which filed an amicus brief at our request. |
Attorney: William B. Acker
Location: Federal Appeals Court
Date: 2005 |
The Federal Appeals Court upheld an important U.S. Tax Court decision that approved federal income tax benefits for Michigan conservation easements.
Practice Areas
Attorney Roster
Home Page
|
