Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association

Michigan Supreme Court

Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association

DecidedJune 20, 2012

Docket144356

StatusPublished

This text of Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association (Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association) 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

Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association, (Mich. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 20, 2012 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

144356-7 Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly RONALD W. LECH II, Brian K. Zahra, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, Justices

v SC: 144356-7 COA: 296489; 297196 HUNTMORE ESTATES CONDOMINIUM Livingston CC: 08-024045-CH ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellee, and JACOBSON ORE CREEK LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. and SCOTT R. JACOBSON, d/b/a S.R. JACOBSON LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as it applies to the Jacobson defendants and REINSTATE the Livingston Circuit Court’s order granting the Jacobson defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the plaintiff could assert the rights of LANS Development Corporation because a covenant against encumbrances is personal and does not run with the land. Pease v Warner, 153 Mich 140, 151-152 (1908); McMurtry v Smith, 320 Mich 304, 308 (1948). Moreover, the orders entered by the Livingston Circuit Court in the interpleader action, Case No. 05-021757-CH, did not confer upon the plaintiff the right to assert the rights of LANS Development Corporation. With respect to Count IV of the plaintiff’s complaint, MCL 559.184a was not applicable because, under the unique circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was not a “prospective purchaser.”

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. June 20, 2012 _________________________________________ h0613 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 20, 2012 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

144356-7 Michael F. Cavanagh Marilyn Kelly Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway Mary Beth Kelly RONALD W. LECH II, Brian K. Zahra, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Appellee, Justices

v SC: 144356-7 COA: 296489; 297196 HUNTMORE ESTATES CONDOMINIUM Livingston CC: 08-024045-CH ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Appellee, and JACOBSON ORE CREEK LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. and SCOTT R. JACOBSON, d/b/a S.R. JACOBSON LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as it applies to the Jacobson defendants and REINSTATE the Livingston Circuit Court’s order granting the Jacobson defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that the plaintiff could assert the rights of LANS Development Corporation because a covenant against encumbrances is personal and does not run with the land. Pease v Warner, 153 Mich 140, 151-152 (1908); McMurtry v Smith, 320 Mich 304, 308 (1948). Moreover, the orders entered by the Livingston Circuit Court in the interpleader action, Case No. 05-021757-CH, did not confer upon the plaintiff the right to assert the rights of LANS Development Corporation. With respect to Count IV of the plaintiff’s complaint, MCL 559.184a was not applicable because, under the unique circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was not a “prospective purchaser.”

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. June 20, 2012 _________________________________________ h0613 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronald W Lech Ii v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-w-lech-ii-v-huntmore-estates-condominium-as-mich-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack