Van Valkenburg v. RETIREMENT HOMES OF THE DETROIT ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF METHODIST CHURCH

Michigan Court of Appeals

Van Valkenburg v. RETIREMENT HOMES OF THE DETROIT ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF METHODIST CHURCH

151 N.W.2d 197, 7 Mich. App. 77, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 539

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1967

DocketDocket 1,396

StatusPublished

This text of 151 N.W.2d 197 (Van Valkenburg v. RETIREMENT HOMES OF THE DETROIT ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF METHODIST CHURCH) 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

Van Valkenburg v. RETIREMENT HOMES OF THE DETROIT ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF METHODIST CHURCH, 151 N.W.2d 197, 7 Mich. App. 77, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

T. G. Kavanagh, J.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment of no cause of action in plaintiff’s suit seeking return of assets conveyed by her to the defendant.

In 1960, plaintiff made application to the defendant for admittance to its retirement home. Upon the acceptance of her application by defendant home, plaintiff executed a membership agreement with the home. The agreement provided that in consideration for the home’s providing her with living quarters, maintenance and medical care for the rest ■ of her life and a Christian burial, plaintiff was to transfer all of her assets to the home. The agreement further provided a means of terminating the contract which required a member to appear before the board of trustees of the home and present to them the circumstances involved in the member’s request for withdrawal.

Approximately 8 months after plaintiff had entered the home and conveyed her property she went to Idaho to visit her brother. Plaintiff has not returned to the home since, expressing dissatisfaction with it.

In affirming the decision of the trial court we need only to point out that plaintiff admittedly entered *79 into a valid contract with the defendant, that plaintiff neither claimed nor showed a breach of this contract, and that unless defendant breached, plaintiff cannot repudiate the contract. See Cornell v. Whitney (1903), 132 Mich 300, Woolcott v. Woolcott (1903), 133 Mich 643.

The agreement between the parties set the procedure that plaintiff was to follow to seek termination of the contract. Since she saw fit not to do so, we will not consider it terminated. The board of trustees of defendant home always have and must still stand ready to meet with plaintiff and to pass on her request for withdrawal, pursuant to the contract.

Affirmed, costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn, J., concurred.

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

T. G. Kavanagh, J.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment of no cause of action in plaintiff’s suit seeking return of assets conveyed by her to the defendant.

In 1960, plaintiff made application to the defendant for admittance to its retirement home. Upon the acceptance of her application by defendant home, plaintiff executed a membership agreement with the home. The agreement provided that in consideration for the home’s providing her with living quarters, maintenance and medical care for the rest ■ of her life and a Christian burial, plaintiff was to transfer all of her assets to the home. The agreement further provided a means of terminating the contract which required a member to appear before the board of trustees of the home and present to them the circumstances involved in the member’s request for withdrawal.

Approximately 8 months after plaintiff had entered the home and conveyed her property she went to Idaho to visit her brother. Plaintiff has not returned to the home since, expressing dissatisfaction with it.

In affirming the decision of the trial court we need only to point out that plaintiff admittedly entered *79 into a valid contract with the defendant, that plaintiff neither claimed nor showed a breach of this contract, and that unless defendant breached, plaintiff cannot repudiate the contract. See Cornell v. Whitney (1903), 132 Mich 300, Woolcott v. Woolcott (1903), 133 Mich 643.

The agreement between the parties set the procedure that plaintiff was to follow to seek termination of the contract. Since she saw fit not to do so, we will not consider it terminated. The board of trustees of defendant home always have and must still stand ready to meet with plaintiff and to pass on her request for withdrawal, pursuant to the contract.

Affirmed, costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.W.2d 197, 7 Mich. App. 77, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-valkenburg-v-retirement-homes-of-the-detroit-annual-conference-of-michctapp-1967.

Opinion

T. G. Kavanagh, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack