HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC. v. Dailey

Michigan Supreme Court

HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC. v. Dailey

732 N.W.2d 108, 478 Mich. 891

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 2007

Docket129733

StatusPublished

This text of 732 N.W.2d 108 (HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC. v. Dailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC. v. Dailey, 732 N.W.2d 108, 478 Mich. 891 (Mich. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

732 N.W.2d 108 (2007)

HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
Steven DAILEY and Janine Dailey, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees, and
George H. Presley, and ABN-AMRO, d/b/a Standard Federal Bank, Defendants, and
Jeffry R. Hartman, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 129733, COA No. 249847.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 8, 2007.

*109 By order of May 4, 2006, we GRANTED the defendant's application for leave to appeal, limited to the questions involving the Michigan Consumer Protection Act's application to residential builders. We now VACATE the opinion of the Court of Appeals to the extent it is inconsistent with Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich. 203, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007). However, because the defendant seeks to rely on the affirmative defense provided in MCL 445.904(1)(a), and the defendant failed to raise the affirmative defense of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act exemption of regulated activities in his first responsive pleading, that defense is not properly before this Court. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order and Liss.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

732 N.W.2d 108 (2007)

HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
Steven DAILEY and Janine Dailey, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees, and
George H. Presley, and ABN-AMRO, d/b/a Standard Federal Bank, Defendants, and
Jeffry R. Hartman, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 129733, COA No. 249847.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 8, 2007.

*109 By order of May 4, 2006, we GRANTED the defendant's application for leave to appeal, limited to the questions involving the Michigan Consumer Protection Act's application to residential builders. We now VACATE the opinion of the Court of Appeals to the extent it is inconsistent with Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478 Mich. 203, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007). However, because the defendant seeks to rely on the affirmative defense provided in MCL 445.904(1)(a), and the defendant failed to raise the affirmative defense of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act exemption of regulated activities in his first responsive pleading, that defense is not properly before this Court. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order and Liss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 N.W.2d 108, 478 Mich. 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-eichhorn-building-company-inc-v-dailey-mich-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack