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
|
