In the 2008 case of Int’l Transmission v. Pine View Estates Subdivision Ass’n, the Michigan Court of Appeals (click for PDF of case) was asked to determine whether an easement agreement from the late 1940’s and early 1950’s giving Detroit Edison, and assignee International Transmission Company, the right to “construct, operate, and maintain” electrical power lines, “including the necessary H-frames, towers, fixtures, wires and equipment”, allowed for an upgrade replacement of wooden H-frame poles with single steel poles over fifty years later.

The landowners opposed the expansion of the easement.  They argued that the original easement agreement didn’t grant the utility company the right to erect steel poles based on the fact that the technology didn’t even exist in the 1940’s and 1950’s.

The Court of Appeals determined that the language in the original easement agreement comprehended the replacement of wooden H-frames with steel poles, even if the technology didn’t exist at the time the agreement was executed. The Court found that the steel monopoles and high voltage wires constitute “necessary … towers … wires and equipment.”

The bottom line is that property owners should be very specific as to what rights they are granting in an easement agreement.  Otherwise, they may end up giving away more than they bargained for.

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

To download a PDF of the case click here.

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

However, there are certain types of transfers of ownership that are exempt from this rule and will not cause an uncapping of the taxable value.  These no-transfer-of-ownership exemptions are listed in the General Property Tax Act, Section 211.27a(7).

One particular exemption that has been the subject of recent litigation in Michigan is set forth in Section 211.27a(7)(h). This exemption has to do with a transfer that creates or terminates a joint tenancy.  It has been widely assumed that the death of a joint tenant is considered a transfer that “uncaps” the taxable value of a property and is not exempt under Section 211.27a(7)(h).

However, in December 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the the Michigan Tax Tribunal in the case of Klooster v City of Charlevoix, holding that the death of one joint tenant, even though it terminated the joint tenancy, was not a “conveyance” because there was no instrument that affected title.  In that case, husband and wife first acquired property, wife then quitclaimed to husband, husband then quitclaimed to himself and his son as joint tenants, and the husband/father subsequently died.  It is the death of the father as joint tenant that is the issue of the dispute.  The court disagreed with the City of Charlevoix and the Tax Tribunal’s contention that the death constituted a “transfer” under Michigan statutes.

Just this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals in Klevorn v. City of Boyne City, using Klooster as precedent and citing the similarity of the facts, held that the death of one joint tenant (mother) and the subsequent transfer the other joint tenant with rights of survivorship (son) was not a “conveyance”.  Therefore, the Court held that the property value upon transfer to the son should not have been uncapped and he was entitled to the no-transfer-of-ownership exemption in MCL 211.27a(7)(h).

The Klooster decision has been appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.  In the meantime, there is precedent to argue that upon the death of a joint tenant, the remaining joint tenant with rights of survivorship is not subject to an uncapping of the property’s taxable value.

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

Once you’ve found the bar that you want to buy, the first step is to sign a purchase agreement.  The purchase agreement should cover everything that you and the seller have agreed upon – purchase price, payment method (e.g. cash, promissory note, etc.), timing of various steps, all terms and conditions, default provisions, naming rights, etc.  (See our article on Merger Clauses for the importance of including everything in one document).  The purchase agreement should also provide a date for closing, which will not occur until after the liquor license is transferred.

Note that Michigan law requires that all liquor inventories be purchased in cash.  Therefore, if your purchase includes any type of financing (such as a promissory note or loan), the purchase of liquor inventory must be specifically excluded from the purchase agreement and must be done in cash at closing.

The purchase agreement should also include provisions about the liquor license, including the purchase price and a provision covering what will happen if the liquor license cannot be transferred.  This is because the license itself cannot be transferred just through a purchase agreement.  Rather, the purchaser has to apply to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (“LCC”) to transfer the license.  The purchaser then must undergo a rigorous application process in order to be approved to buy the license.  This process can take months, so purchasers must be patient!

While the liquor license transfer is pending, you should conduct due diligence on the operations of the bar.  If you plan to keep the bar open continuously before and after the closing, you should plan accordingly for a seamless transition.  Once the liquor license transfer has been approved, you can hold a closing and complete the sale.

This article was written by Melissa L. Demorest, 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.

On January 9, 2009, the State Real Estate Transfer Tax Act (MCL 207.521, et seq.) was amended to impose the state real estate transfer tax (“SRETT”) on transfers of a “controlling interest” in an entity, if the entity has 90% or more of its value in real estate. “Controlling interest” is defined to include ownership of 80% of the stock of a corporation, or 80% of the membership interests of a limited liability company.

The amended Act includes the same exemptions as the original SRETT statute, but adds new exemptions for (i) transfers made to effectuate a dissolution of the corporation, limited liability company, partnership or trust, and (ii) transfers from an entity to another where the ownership remains the same.

The amendments do not apply to the county property transfer tax. Therefore, an entity purchase still does not trigger an obligation to pay the county transfer tax.

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

If the employer does not follow standard eviction procedures, he or she could be liable for violating Michigan’s Anti-Lock Out Statute, which states that the wrongly evicted employee “shall be entitled to recover the amount of his actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater, for each occurrence and, where possession has been lost, to recover possession.” In other words, the employer would be responsible for paying damages and giving the property back (at least until the correct eviction procedure has been followed).

To avoid this liability, the employer should provide the discharged or resigned employee with a notice to quit. If the former employee does not leave after the notice to quit is provided, then the next step is to file a complaint for possession of the premises in the local District Court.

On May 19, 2009, the Michigan Legislature passed a package of three bills designed to give homeowners facing foreclosure a ninety-day window to meet with their lender and modify the terms of their mortgage.  With the state facing one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, lawmakers hope these new laws will ease the strain on distressed homeowners and allow them to stay in their homes.  These laws may not be permanent.  Some of the provisions will be in effect for a period of only two years unless the “sunset” provision is amended.  Governor Granholm signed the bills on May 21, 2009, and the laws will take effect on July 5, 2009.

Under the legislation, a lender may not foreclose on a property claimed as a principal residence unless the lender first provides written notice to the borrower stating the reasons that the mortgage loan is in default and the amount due.  The written notice must also designate an agent of the mortgage holder whom the borrower can contact to attempt to rework the terms of the loan, and a list of housing counselors prepared by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority whom the borrower can request to attend a meeting with the agent of the mortgage holder to assist in modifying the loan.

The law further provides that foreclosure proceedings may not be commenced until ninety days after the initial notice was mailed if the borrower chooses to meet with the mortgage holder.  If the borrower and the mortgage holder reach an agreement to modify the terms of the loan within the ninety-day period, the mortgage cannot be foreclosed.  Potential modifications include an interest rate reduction, extension of the amortization period, deferral of up to 20% of the unpaid balance of the loan, and reduction or elimination of late fees.

If the homeowner meets minimum financial standards specified in the law, but the mortgage holder refuses to modify the terms of the loan, the lender is required to go before a judge to attempt to complete the foreclosure.  Additionally, if notice is not mailed to the borrower as required, the borrower may bring an action in the circuit court to enjoin the foreclosure.

The new restrictions apply only to property claimed as a principal residence by the property owner.  They do not apply to second homes, rental properties or other commercial properties.

For the full text of the new laws, click here (PDF format).

Michigan Legislature Website – House Bill 4453

Michigan Legislature Website – House Bill 4454

Michigan Legislature Website – House Bill 4455