In order to avoid situations similar to the one above, employers should do one of the following: (1) Allow the employee to work through the resignation date; (2) Continue to pay the employee through the resignation date, but tell them that they do not need to actively work during this period; or (3) Add provisions to employment contracts or the employee handbook stating that after receiving an employee’s notice of resignation with a future effective date, the employer may  accept that resignation effective immediately.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

In order for a right of first refusal to be enforceable, those specific words should be used, and the requirements for the tenant to exercise the right of first refusal must be clearly spelled out.

In Gerstenberger Farms, Inc. v Grimes (April 22, 2010), the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the effect of a lease that contained a provision that “[i]f the lessor decides to sell the property, the lessee will be given an opportunity to purchase the property.”  The Court of Appeals ruled that this language was not sufficient to create a right of first refusal, because the lease did not contain those words or provide any more specific conditions for the tenant’s right to purchase the property.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the landlord did not breach the lease by selling the property to someone else.  The tenant had in fact been given the opportunity to purchase the property before the sale.  Several months before the sale, the landlord told the tenant of his plan to sell the property.  The tenant replied that he could not afford the landlord’s asking price.  Because the tenant had been given the opportunity to purchase the property, the tenant did not have a right of first refusal when the landlord received an offer to purchase the property from a third party.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

In Duray Development, LLC v Perrin, the issue was that the defendant had signed a contract and Articles of Organization to create a new limited liability company on the same date.  However, the Articles were not officially accepted by the State of Michigan until a month later.  The plaintiff tried to hold the defendant individually liable for the contract because the limited liability company did not legally exist on the date the contract was signed.

Michigan Courts have recognized the concepts of “de facto corporation” and “corporation by estoppel” for years as they apply to corporations.   The de facto corporation provides that a defectively formed corporation—one that fails to meet the technical requirements for forming a corporation—may still receive the protection of a corporation if the incorporators attempted in good faith to form the corporation, signing the necessary documents.

Corporation by estoppel is not a legal status, but an equitable remedy.  The court will hold that when a body assumes to be a corporation and acts under a particular corporate name, and a third party dealing with it under such assumed name believes it Is actually dealing with a corporation, the third party is estopped (prevented) to later deny its corporate existence.

These two concepts typically arise in situations where the court has to assess corporate versus individual liability. The issue of first impression before the Michigan Court of Appeal in Duray Development, LLC v Perrin (decided April 13, 2010) was whether these same legal doctrines apply to limited liability companies, which is a newer type of entity.  The Court of Appeals held that because the Business Corporation Act and the Limited Liability Act relate to the common purpose of forming a business and because both statutes contemplate the moment of existence for each, they should be interpreted in a consistent manner.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals ruled that the de facto corporation doctrine is also applicable to limited liability companies.

The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the doctrine of “corporation by estoppel” also applies to limited liability companies, because the defendant did not raise the issue at the Circuit Court level, so the issue was not properly before the Circuit Court.  However, the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Duray Development strongly suggests that this legal doctrine will also apply to limited liability companies.

This article was written by Michael R. Dorfman, Senior Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

To download a PDF of the case click here.

This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.

In some circumstances, and often in the context of a loan, parties may enter into multiple agreements with one another. When there are multiple agreements between the same parties, one party may want to negotiate the inclusion of  “cross default” provisions in those agreements.  A cross default provision provides that a party’s default under one agreement triggers an automatic default of all of the other agreements between the parties. Banks or Lenders often include a cross default provision in their loan documents to protect their financial interests.  Once the cross default provision is invoked, the defaulting party is not likely to have many options for recourse.

In order to be effective, the cross default provision must be included in each of the agreements subject to the cross default. Eagle Ridge LLC v Albert Homes LLC, 2009 Mich App, LEXIS 2382 (November 17, 2009).  In the recent case of Eagle Ridge LLC v Albert Homes LLC, the Michigan Court of Appeals refused to enforce a cross default provision that was found in only one of two simultaneously signed agreements.

The Michigan Court of Appeals used basic contract principals to support its decision.  Quoting Randolph v Reisig, 272 Mich App 331 (2006), the Court found that “an unambiguous contractual provision is reflective of the parties’ intent as a matter of law, and if the language of the contract is unambiguous, we construe and enforce the contract as written.”  Therefore, because one of the agreements at issue did not contain a cross default provision, the Court concluded that the parties must not have intended that the agreement be subject to a cross default provision.

This article was written by Natalie C. Najarian, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

The most important provisions in a severance agreement are those regarding payment, non-competition, and the release of claims. In a severance agreement, the employee typically agrees to accept payment in exchange for agreeing to release employer from claims he or she may have against employer. It is also very typical for a severance agreement, like many employment agreements, to include a non-compete provision. An agreement not to compete should be reviewed for reasonableness, which will vary depending on the specifics of the situation.

It is recommended that employers offer the terminated employee a reasonable period of time to consider signing a severance agreement with a release. A release is unenforceable unless the employee voluntarily executes it, i.e., the execution is not the result of duress or coercion.

Employers should make sure to have legal counsel draft or review their severance agreement to ensure that the employer is adequately protected. Employees should consult legal counsel before signing a severance agreement to ensure that the agreement terms are fair and reasonable.

This article was written by Natalie C. Najarian, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

Some oral contracts are enforceable, but several types of contracts are enforceable only if they are in writing.  This stems from a legal concept called the “Statute of Frauds,” which was developed in the 17th Century and is still followed today.  The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent fraud in certain types of contracts

Under Michigan law, the following types of contracts (among others) generally must be in writing to be enforceable:

• real estate agreements, including purchase agreements, deeds, mortgages, and leases (unless the lease is for less than one year)
• contracts that cannot be performed within one year (e.g. a two-year employment contract)
• promises to pay the debt of another (e.g. a personal guarantee)
• marital contracts (e.g. prenuptial agreements)
• real estate commission agreements
• promises made by financial institutions (such as a promise to lend)
• misrepresentations regarding credit
• sales of goods worth more than $1000
• sales of personal property

How can you protect yourself or your business?  First, it’s generally a good idea to make sure that all contracts are in writing and are signed by all parties to the contract.  If the agreement is in writing, and signed by all parties, the parties usually cannot dispute later that something was left out of the agreement.  Second, if you have an existing agreement that’s not in writing, you should contact an attorney to find out whether that agreement should be put into writing in order to make it enforceable.

This article was written by Melissa L. Demorest, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

In the Michigan Court of Appeals case Bronco Oil v Citizens Bank (click here to download), the contract language, in essence, immunized the breaching party from having to pay the damages it allegedly caused because they occurred outside of a 12-month period before the lawsuit was filed. Even though the lawsuit was timely, the potential damages were lost because of when the lawsuit was filed.

This article was written by Michael R. Dorfman, Senior Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

Here is a scenario where a general release was used, which demonstrates the importance of reviewing the specific language used.   The example comes from the recent case of Levy v Ford Motor Company (Click here for a PDF of this decision).   Party A had a history of contracting with Party B for delivery of construction materials and services. In October 1998, an incident occurred involving a truck owned by Party A and a train owned by Party B. Each party maintained that the other was responsible. Party B issued a debit memorandum in 2001, and thereafter stopped paying invoices to offset its alleged losses from damage to its train.   In connection with other contracts, Party A sued Party B for payment for ready-mix concrete shipped after May 2004. The parties settled that case, and their agreement included a release that comprehensively waived any further claims Party A might have against Party B “from the beginning of time,” but “with the sole exception of any claim arising out of damage to the train equipment.

In 2007, Party A filed an action as a claim for payments due under invoices dating from “2001 and before” in connection with deliveries of materials to Party B.  Party A sought monetary contract damages plus an accounting.   However, the Court held that Party A had already released any and all claims it might have otherwise had against Party B arising from events prior to 2004, despite the fact that the claims were not related to the train accident. Because of the comprehensive language and nature of the release it had signed in the first settlement, Party A wound up releasing any and all claims it could have had against Party B, despite the fact the causes of action were completely different.

Always have an attorney review your settlement and release documents to ensure you are preserving valuable rights and not being taken advantage of in the settlement.

This article was written by Michael R. Dorfman, Senior Associate at Demorest Law Firm.

This rule is clear in the recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, Vanhellemont v Gleason, et al (Click here for a PDF of the unpublished decision). The Court in this case looked to the terms of the parties’ Purchase Agreement and the Dual Agency Agreement and held that the dual agent not only complied with her duties under the Dual Agency Agreement by simply completing the transaction, but she would have been in violation of her duties under the Dual Agency Agreement had she drafted either a buyer-oriented or a seller-oriented agreement.

Therefore, a buyer or a seller that agrees to a dual agency relationship with their real estate agent is also agreeing, unless stated otherwise in writing, to be responsible for understanding and approving the terms of the purchase and sale agreement that they sign.  The dual agent will only ensure that the transaction in completed according to the terms of the purchase and sale agreement.

This article was written by Natalie C. Najarian, Associate at Demorest Law Firm.