Benito Tome v. Steven E Tome
333405
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- In 2002 Benito and his son Steven took a $163,600 mortgage on a Livonia property; Steven executed a quitclaim deed to Benito to secure a better interest rate.
- Steven testified they agreed to split the mortgage 50/50 and that he used his loan proceeds for personal debts and a bar; Benito testified Steven agreed to repay the mortgage in full from bar profits.
- Steven paid the mortgage alone for about 11 years while Benito collected rental income from a smaller house on the property and from a tenant who later lived with Benito.
- Benito sued Steven (breach of contract and related claims), alleging Steven had promised to repay the mortgage in full; Steven counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and entitlement to half the mortgage and rental income.
- The trial court found Steven more credible, held the parties agreed to each pay half the mortgage, declined to set aside the quitclaim deed, and awarded Steven half of rental income during periods he was obligated to contribute to mortgage payments.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed contract formation and the validity of the quitclaim deed, reversed the rental‑income award (no evidence of an agreement to share rents), and remanded for calculation of mortgage-division remedies; it also rejected Benito’s statute‑of‑limitations defense to Steven’s mortgage claim.
Issues
| Issue | Benito's Argument | Steven's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties formed a contract to split mortgage payments 50/50 | No — Steven agreed to repay the mortgage in full from bar profits | Yes — both agreed to each pay half the mortgage | Held: Contract existed (trial court credibility finding for Steven sustained) |
| Whether Steven is entitled to half the rental income from the property | No — no express or implied agreement to divide rental income | Yes — rents should offset mortgage contributions and be split 50/50 | Held: Reversed — no evidence of an express or implied agreement to share rental income |
| Whether the quitclaim deed (Steven -> Benito) should be set aside | Argues deed should be set aside or did not alter remedial rights | Asserts deed was executed to obtain favorable mortgage rate and is valid | Held: Affirmed — no valid basis to set aside the quitclaim deed |
| Whether Steven’s breach‑of‑contract claim is time‑barred | Limitations ran within six years after 2002 mortgage; claim barred | Claim did not accrue until repudiation/antagonistic conduct; not time‑barred | Held: Affirmed that claim is not barred — accrual did not necessarily occur in 2002; anticipatory breach principles apply |
Key Cases Cited
- AFT Mich v. Michigan, 303 Mich App 651 (2014) (express contract governs; court may not imply contract on same subject)
- Calhoun Co v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich, 297 Mich App 1 (2012) (elements of contract and meeting of the minds standard)
- Quality Prods & Concepts Co v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich 362 (2003) (objective standard for mutual assent; no contract if no meeting of the minds)
- Rowe v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 437 Mich 627 (1991) (definition and application of implied‑in‑fact contracts)
- Paul v. Bogle, 193 Mich App 479 (1992) (doctrine of anticipatory breach; remedies and accrual options)