Michael Horton v. McLaren Performance Technologies Inc
330347
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 13, 2017Background
- McLaren proposed rezoning Livonia property; Horton protested and submitted a withdrawal-encouraging contract.
- Horton allegedly formed an April 2010 contract with McLaren and Linamar to withdraw protest in exchange for four commitments.
- McLaren and Linamar later incorporated voluntary conditions into their zoning petition; Livonia approved the rezoning.
- In 2015, Horton sued for breach of contract, alleging McLaren/Linamar built a larger parking lot and failed to apply landscaping.
- Horton sought a writ of mandamus against Livonia and an injunction to halt construction; the trial court issued an injunction but dismissed Horton’s contract claims.
- Trial court sua sponte dismissed Horton’s breach of contract claims against McLaren and Linamar, citing inability to enforce voluntary zoning conditions; Horton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err in dismissing breach of contract claims against McLaren and Linamar? | Horton alleges an independent contract with McLaren/Linamar and due process required notice. | The court dismissed based on lack of enforceable agreement and conflation with voluntary zoning conditions. | Yes, error; standing and contract exist need factual development. |
| Is there an enforceable contract between Horton and McLaren/Linamar, potentially barred by the statute of frauds? | There was an independent April 2010 contract separate from Livonia's conditions. | Contracts may be oral and subject to statute of frauds; record insufficient to decide. | Remanded; record insufficient to resolve contract existence/enforceability. |
| Did the trial court properly resolve Horton’s claims while leaving Livonia's dismissal intact? | Livonia-related issues should be addressed consistently with Horton’s breach claims. | Livonia was properly dismissed; Horton’s breach claims against Livonia are unaffected. | Livonia dismissal stands; breach claims against McLaren/Linamar proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barclae v. Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 (2013) (standing and de novo review principles)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (summary disposition standards)
- Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483 (2009) (due process and summary disposition limits)
- Bonner v City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209 (2014) (due process rights in notices and hearings)
- People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376 (2007) (preservation of issues and record for unpreserved challenges)