Forge v. Smith
| Citation | 580 N.W.2d 876,458 Mich. 198 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 107437,No. 5,5 |
| Parties | Norman FORGE and NMF, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Leonard SMITH, Diane Smith and Thomas Faber, Defendants-Appellees. Calendar |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
David J. Esper, P.C., Plymouth, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John J. Davey, P.C., Madison Heights, for defendants-appellees.
We granted leave to determine whether the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because plaintiffs' claim of express easement failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. We affirm the decision of the trial court because we find that the plaintiffs failed to establish a claim as a matter of law.
Diane Smith and Thomas Faber were co-owners of six contiguous lots in the city of Detroit. 1 Faber, Smith, and her husband Leonard Smith entered into a twenty-five-year lease with the plaintiffs for three of the six parcels, described as lots 22, 23, and 24. The lease provided that Forge was to contract with defendant Leonard Smith for the construction of a building on the property. 2 At the time plaintiffs entered into the lease, the other three parcels, described as lots 19, 20 and 21, were leased to another tenant named Susheel Bery. 3 Lot 21 was vacant and used for ingress and egress by Bery's customers.
Forge went to the architectural firm of Land S.E.A. Corporation to have the building plans prepared. 4 The plans included lot 21 as part of the project. Forge and Smith both deny providing the land description to Land S.E.A. Testimony revealed that Land S.E.A. normally educed this type of information from the client, who was Norman Forge. 5
Leonard Smith submitted two applications to the city of Detroit for building permits. In these applications, he identified the location of the project as lots 22 through 24. The application also referred to the plans.
The project was also the subject of a zoning board of appeals decision and order. There was no indication in the record about who filed the application with the zoning board. The order named Leonard and Diane Smith as the owners and included lot 21 in the legal description of the property. The decision was recorded, although the record similarly does not indicate who recorded the decision.
Forge opened his business, known as the PX Bar and Grill, in December 1987. 6 Plaintiff Forge's customers parked on lot 21 for the purposes of ingress and egress to the bar. 7
In June, 1991, the tune-up franchise went out of business. The lease was assigned to defendants Joseph Ascione, Jerry Ascione, and Harry Kief for the purpose of operating a car repair business. As part of the lease-assignment agreement, the landlords agreed to provide parking curb blocks to prevent Forge's customers from parking on lot 21.
After the blocks were installed, plaintiffs filed suit against Leonard Smith, Diane Smith, Thomas Faber, Harry Kief, Joseph Ascione, and Jerry Ascione, seeking declaratory relief to enforce easement rights to lot 21, damages for breach of the easement, and for innocent misrepresentation. 8
A four-day jury trial was conducted in June, 1993. 9 The jury found that plaintiffs had acquired easement rights by express grant and awarded $505,517 in damages for interference with that right. 10
The defendants brought a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict 11 or for a new trial. 12 The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a written opinion, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support the plaintiffs' easement interference claim. The court found that there was no evidence of signatures of all the owners that could be attributed to the plans, and further concluded that Leonard Smith's signature on the building permits could not constitute a written conveyance because there was no writing authorizing him to grant, assign, or surrender the property. 13
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed two to one. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, issued September 17, 1996 (Docket No. 177588), the majority found that there were contradictory standards of review for judgment notwithstanding the verdict motions. Because the Court found that the trial court decision was proper under either standard, the majority found it unnecessary to determine which was the proper standard.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of any agreement between the parties as a matter of law. The Court held that no easement rights were created because the lease did not grant plaintiffs any right to use lot 21, and the building plans were not approved by the landlords in writing as required by the lease. The Court agreed with the trial court that Leonard Smith's apparent approval of the plans was not binding on Diane Smith and Thomas Faber because there was no writing authorizing Leonard Smith to act on the landowner's behalf as required by statute. 14
In addressing the innocent misrepresentation claim, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason. The Court agreed that the claim of innocent misrepresentation is a viable claim. However, the facts of the case precluded the granting of any relief. Any statements made by Leonard Smith were insufficient to bind the owners. The Court further held that plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on an oral grant of an easement without a writing authorizing the making of the grant. Lastly, the Court found that a promise regarding the future could not form the basis of a misrepresentation claim.
We granted leave to appeal. 456 Mich. 902, 572 N.W.2d 12 (1997).
The issue in this case is whether the trial court correctly granted defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that the statute of frauds barred plaintiffs' claimed easement interest. Resolution of the issue will turn upon application of the facts to well-settled law.
As a threshold matter, we reiterate that
[t]he standard of review for judgments notwithstanding the verdict requires review of the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.... Only if the evidence so viewed fails to establish a claim as a matter of law, should a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be granted. [Orzel v. Scott Drug, 449 Mich. 550, 557-558, 537 N.W.2d 208 (1995), citing Wadsworth v. New York Life Ins., 349 Mich. 240, 84 N.W.2d 513 (1957), and Schutte v. Celotex Corp., 196 Mich.App. 135, 492 N.W.2d 773 (1992).]
Questions of law are subject to review de novo. 15
The statute of frauds provisions applicable to the case at bar provide:
No estate or interest in lands, other than leases for a term not exceeding 1 year, nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by a deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized by writing. [M.C.L. § 566.106; M.S.A. § 26.906.]
Every contract for the leasing for a longer period than 1 year, or for the sale of any lands, or any interest in lands, shall be void, unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and signed by the party by whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing....[M.C.L. § 566.108; M.S.A. § 26.908.]
An easement is an interest in land that is subject to the statute of frauds. 16 In order to create an express easement, there must be language in the writing manifesting a clear intent to create a servitude. 17 Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of use of the land free of easements. 18
All owners of jointly held property must sign a contract conveying an interest in the property; the absence of a signature by a co-owner renders the contract void. 19
Rather than apply fixed rules for compliance with the statute of frauds, this Court has adopted a case-by-case approach. In Opdyke Investment Co. v. Norris Grain Co., 20 we stated:
We decline to accept the defendants' invitation to adopt narrow and rigid rules for compliance with the statute of frauds. Instead, we affirm the standard espoused by Professor Corbin and adopted by this Court in Goslin v. Goslin [369 Mich. 372, 376, 120 N.W.2d 242 (1963) ]:
Plaintiff contends that an express easement was granted on the basis of the signed lease, the construction agreement, the building plans, and the oral representations of the owners through Leonard Smith.
The lease contract, the only document signed by the owners of the property, does not grant any sort of property interest in lot 21. The only property interest granted in that document is a clear and unambiguous leasehold interest in lots 22, 23 and 24.
Where one writing references another instrument for additional contract terms, the two writings should be read together. 21 The Court must look for the party's intent within the contract where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummins v. Robinson Twp.
...26 (1992). We also review de novo constitutional issues and any other questions of law that are raised on appeal. Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 204, 580 N.W.2d 876 (1998); Hinojosa v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 263 Mich.App. 537, 541, 688 N.W.2d 550 I. DOCKET NO. 279020 Easterling and For......
-
Zurcher v. Herveat, Docket No. 206948.
...602, 606, 423 N.W.2d 284 (1988), and McFadden v. Imus, 192 Mich. App. 629, 633, 481 N.W.2d 812 (1992). 5. See also Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 206, 580 N.W.2d 876 (1998) ("Rather than apply fixed rules for compliance with the statute of frauds, this Court has adopted a case-by-case appro......
-
Michigan Elec. Employees v. Encompass Elec.
...Wonderland Shopping Ctr. Venture Ltd. P'ship v. CDC Mortgage Capital, Inc., 274 F.3d 1085, 1092 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 580 N.W.2d 876 (1998))). The defendants complain, however, that Price was never given a copy of the CBAs before signing the letters of assent......
-
Prime Financial v. Vinton, Docket No. 273264.
...decision, we review the evidence and all legitimate inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 204, 580 N.W.2d 876 (1998). "Only if the evidence, when viewed in this light, fails to establish a claim as a matter of law should a motion for .......