Superior American Homes v. Fry

Michigan Court of Appeals

Superior American Homes v. Fry

343 N.W.2d 561, 130 Mich. App. 379

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 1983

DocketDocket 65233

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 343 N.W.2d 561 (Superior American Homes v. Fry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Superior American Homes v. Fry, 343 N.W.2d 561, 130 Mich. App. 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right from a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $21,000.

Plaintiffs originally brought this action to recover the contract price of a premanufactured home built by plaintiff Superior American Homes and sold through Superior’s agent, Sanford Peterson, doing business as plaintiff Sanford’s Real Estate Agency. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging, inter alia, defective construction, misrepresentation, fraud and breach of warranty. Plaintiffs do not appeal the jury award of $6,320 to defendant on this counterclaim.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in defendant’s favor after the jury found that the selling agent of the home in question was Sanford’s Real Estate Agency, New Homes Division, a partnership, and not Sanford Peterson, an individual doing business as Sanford’s Real Estate Agency. The trial court ruled that the licensing of one partner in his individual capacity was "substantial compliance” with the requirements of the residential builders [381]*381act then in effect, MCL 338.1501 et seq.; MSA 18.86(101) et seq.

The residential builders act required that any individual, firm or partnership which engaged in the construction of residential structures must be licensed, MCL 338.1501, 338.1502; MSA 18.86(101), 18.86(102), with one penalty being that a person engaged in the business of a residential builder without a license may not "bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any act or contract for which a license is required”. MCL 338.1516; MSA 18.86(116).

In the instant case, plaintiff Superior American Homes was not licensed in this state. Sanford’s Real Estate Agency, New Homes Division, the agent of Superior American, was not licensed as a partnership, although Sanford Peterson, individually, was licensed. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, there was no substantial compliance on the part of the plaintiffs with the act. See Bernard F Hoste, Inc v Kortz, 117 Mich App 448; 324 NW2d 46 (1982). The jury award to plaintiffs of $21,000 is, therefore, reversed.

Our disposition of defendant’s first issue makes it unnecessary to address defendant’s second issue on appeal.

Reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right from a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $21,000.

Plaintiffs originally brought this action to recover the contract price of a premanufactured home built by plaintiff Superior American Homes and sold through Superior’s agent, Sanford Peterson, doing business as plaintiff Sanford’s Real Estate Agency. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging, inter alia, defective construction, misrepresentation, fraud and breach of warranty. Plaintiffs do not appeal the jury award of $6,320 to defendant on this counterclaim.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in defendant’s favor after the jury found that the selling agent of the home in question was Sanford’s Real Estate Agency, New Homes Division, a partnership, and not Sanford Peterson, an individual doing business as Sanford’s Real Estate Agency. The trial court ruled that the licensing of one partner in his individual capacity was "substantial compliance” with the requirements of the residential builders [381]*381act then in effect, MCL 338.1501 et seq.; MSA 18.86(101) et seq.

The residential builders act required that any individual, firm or partnership which engaged in the construction of residential structures must be licensed, MCL 338.1501, 338.1502; MSA 18.86(101), 18.86(102), with one penalty being that a person engaged in the business of a residential builder without a license may not "bring or maintain any action in any court of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any act or contract for which a license is required”. MCL 338.1516; MSA 18.86(116).

In the instant case, plaintiff Superior American Homes was not licensed in this state. Sanford’s Real Estate Agency, New Homes Division, the agent of Superior American, was not licensed as a partnership, although Sanford Peterson, individually, was licensed. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, there was no substantial compliance on the part of the plaintiffs with the act. See Bernard F Hoste, Inc v Kortz, 117 Mich App 448; 324 NW2d 46 (1982). The jury award to plaintiffs of $21,000 is, therefore, reversed.

Our disposition of defendant’s first issue makes it unnecessary to address defendant’s second issue on appeal.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 N.W.2d 561, 130 Mich. App. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/superior-american-homes-v-fry-michctapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack