John Bailey v. Mf Holdings Inc
366211
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs John Bailey and Natalie Neice purchased a property marketed and sold through several defendants, including real estate agents, brokers, and holding companies.
- Plaintiffs acknowledged in their buyer-agency contract that neither their agent nor the broker were acting as experts on the physical condition of the property.
- The property was disclosed to plaintiffs on an "as-is" basis, and the seller disclosure form stated the seller had never lived there and marked key details as "unknown."
- Plaintiffs did not inspect the property prior to purchase, relying on an appraisal valuing it at $200,000.
- After closing, plaintiffs discovered defects and alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and other claims, arguing defendants concealed the true, much lower value and condition of the property.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to all defendants, finding no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation, and plaintiffs appealed solely on that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent Misrepresentation | Defendants concealed defects and property value | No actionable misrepresentation; purchase was "as is" | No evidence of false representation; summary disposition granted |
| Existence of Factual Disputes | Material facts preclude summary disposition | Plaintiffs showed no evidence beyond speculation | No genuine issue of material fact shown |
| Liability of Agents/Brokers | Agents/brokers involved in misrepresentation | Agents/brokers made no representations, contract disclaimed any | Summary disposition proper |
| Value & Condition of Property | Property was condemned, worth only $20,000 | Only evidence was $200,000 appraisal, no support for claim | Unsupported assertion; summary disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich 358 (Mich. 1996) (sets burden shifting for summary disposition)
- Cloverleaf Car Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 213 Mich App 186 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (conjecture/speculation insufficient for summary disposition)
- Bergen v. Baker, 264 Mich App 376 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Sherman v. City of St Joseph, 332 Mich App 626 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Payne v. Payne, 338 Mich App 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (standard for summary disposition in light of evidence)