Scott D Norton v. Traci Nelson
332348
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff and defendant cohabited in a marriage-like (meretricious) relationship for about 18 months; plaintiff paid living expenses totaling $68,784.50 and later sued for repayment.
- Plaintiff pleaded breach of contract (oral or implied agreement to repay), unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and fraud.
- Defendant produced unchallenged text messages showing plaintiff’s payments were voluntary and expressions of love/choice to provide for defendant and her children.
- Plaintiff offered no documentary evidence of any promise to repay and did not dispute the texts’ authenticity.
- Trial court granted defendant summary disposition on all counts and later awarded defendant $17,657.32 in attorney fees and costs as sanctions for a frivolous action under MCL 600.2591 and MCR 2.114.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach-of-contract claim survives given the meretricious relationship | Norton: payments were loans or there was an express/implied agreement to repay | Nelson: payments were gratuitous within a meretricious relationship; no agreement to repay | Court: Affirmed dismissal — presumption of gratuitous intent unrebutted; (C)(10) summary disposition upheld |
| Whether unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims are viable | Norton: equitable/estoppel theories entitle recovery for payments | Nelson: implied-in-law contracts cannot be enforced from meretricious-relationship services | Court: Dismissed — agreements implied in law barred in this context |
| Whether fraud claim was pleaded sufficiently | Norton: defendant promised to repay, inducing reliance | Nelson: no actionable misrepresentation; at most a broken promise | Court: Dismissed — mere broken promise is not fraud; (C)(8) dismissal proper |
| Whether attorney-fee sanction was proper | Norton: award improper (argues procedural basis) | Nelson: suit was frivolous; pleadings lacked factual and legal support; MCL 600.2591 and MCR 2.114 authorize fees | Court: Affirmed award — suit lacked arguable legal merit and factual support; amount reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Featherston v. Steinhoff, 226 Mich. App. 584 (services in meretricious relationship presumed gratuitous)
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co., Inc. v. East China Twp. Schools, 443 Mich. 176 (unjust enrichment described as contract implied in law)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (summary disposition C(10) standard)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (summary disposition C(8) standard)
- Zaremba Equipment, Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., 280 Mich. App. 16 (elements of fraud requiring knowingly/recklessly false representation)
- Marrerro v. McDonnell Douglas Capital Corp., 200 Mich. App. 438 (broken promise alone is not fraud)
- Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. v. Titan Ins. Co., 314 Mich. App. 577 (standard of review for fee-award appropriateness)
- Joerger v. Gordon Food Service, Inc., 224 Mich. App. 167 (appellate review of fee-amount as abuse of discretion)
- Groves v. Dep’t of Corrections, 295 Mich. App. 1 (appellate court may affirm on different grounds supported by record)