State Bar of Michigan v. Kupris, 116 N.W.2d 341

State Bar of Michigan v. Kupris

116 N.W.2d 341

Mich.

1962

Check Treatment

*1 Michigan 366 688 any other assets retain permitted party Each from claims free clear her and possession in his or the history into account Taking the other party. to be fair. appear the award would the parties, Fansler v. Manigold, 310; 304 Mich Manigold v. Shaw, 364 Mich 560. Mich Shaw v. 569; Fansler, the lower court is no decree of We find error. The affirmed, appellee. with costs J., and Kava- Kelly, Black, Carr, Dethmers, C. concurred. JJ., and Otis M. nagh, Smith, Souris, v. KUPRIS. OF MICHIGAN BAR STATE Injunction—Brokers—Practice of Law. 1. out standard broker limiting real-estate Decree action when sueh is printed stationers printed forms as transacting no extra to the items business he cidental given as to le- eharge and no advice or counsel made therefor held, validity proper in gal instruments State effect and sueh law, enjoin practicing where Bar’s suit to defendant broker prepared preparing an he had and made a instru- ment incident to transaction he was not with which involved (CL 1948, seq., amended; 601.61). 451.201 et § § Law—Pilling Attorney Blanks Out Client—Practice 2. in Standard Poems. used in fills standard forms trans- who out blanks One may said to be in the law business or to not be actions holding public as an himself at ^[5] [1-3] Drafting, lating 28 Am stituting practice of law. 53 ALR2d 788. 5 Am to land Jur, Injunctions Jur, Attorneys at or. References in blanks for Points § Law § agents, brokers, managers printed forms, 300. 3. in Headnotes of instruments con- re- Kupris. oe to the item of business transacted it done incidental where eharge made nor advice or therefor counsel extra validity (CL given as to effect and of such instruments *2 1948, 601.61). § Brokers—Filling in Evidence—Real-Estate Out Blanks 3. Standard Forms. knowledge practice a matter of It is of common licensed real-estate brokers has involved out of in blanks standard forms of instruments han- used the transactions seq., (CL 1948, amended). them dled et 451.201 Equity—Decree—Pleading. 4. may A properly presented by deeree cover matters not pleadings. op Broker—Practice Law. 5. Costs'—Real-Estate enjoin a real-estate bro- costs are suit No allowed practice engaging from in the law. ker of Appeal (Stuart), Hoffius J. Submit- Kent; (Docket April 10, No. ted 49,362.) 1962. No. Calendar July 2, 1962. Decided public body Michigan, Bill Bar of a State cor- against individually porate, Kupris, B. William doing Bealty Company, business as to en- filling Williams join drafting legal of documents operation in of forms of in connection with real- enjoining per- plaintiff for estate business. Decree excepting of formance but services printed in business forms incidental items standard being appeals asking transacted. Plaintiff order. broader Affirmed. plaintiff. for Hall,

J. Cameron Waring Dunn, for defendant. Earl ais in this case real- The defendant J.C. Carr, city maintaining office broker estate carrying Bapids under the on business Grand Bealty Company. He was licensed of Williams name Michigan corporation and se- broker as such September, 1948. Inferential- commission curities Michigan lie has ly conducting question been business that time. since improperly that defendant has

Claiming in the circuit court Kent instant suit

filed the was relief. It injunctive alleged county of 1960 September defend- complaint bill the sale of ant acted as In Michigan. connec- Springs, at Cedar restaurant mortgage a chattel tion the transaction Shortly to the of the property. executed sellers undertook to after such transaction purchasers with parties and negotiated establishment resell consent of the chattel purchase. desiring necessary was deemed and defendant mortgagees and obtain the execution of an agreed prepare It was alleged consent. strument evidence *3 not a proper that defendant did prepare further for but he the charged instrument execution for for of his and which advice, sum services $100 the note was to him. In given amount a promissory not the restaurant defendant did resale of business or another brok- broker, operator act capacity. act such er been retained having in its that defendant’s charged pleading Plaintiff the premises attempted prac- acts the constituted he under- by of that the which procedure tice and him not was such party contacting took assist Plaintiff accomplish alleged the desired result. of defendant part conduct on the such generally if and would public repeated members of the injured way further Relief of injury. cause perhaps against defendant, restraining sought was junction from permanently, him draft- temporarily “both documents, and from forms ing any legal any or to affect affecting instruments, purporting of purchasers sellers rights or claims as between Ktjpris. Bar or pertaining or to real-estate transactions, businesses any giving advice or relative to .and from n engaging and from documents, Michigan.” of law the State complaint filing an of the bill of order On why requiring to show cause issued granted. sought not Defendant made relief should asserting in connection that his acts with the answer plaintiff’s complaint to in transaction referred bill attempt performed in an the broker of were assist par- purchase bundling behalf sale that his thereto. He further admitted ties “probably him con- h.ad advised that such acts did practice of law” that he and stated had stitute owner of the returned sum way compensation from him for received $100 admitting that he services. had handled While properly the matter entrusted to he denied that him, consequence. any damage He ex- had resulted injunction might pressly an issue consented that holding of accordance with the this Court County Bar Walter Neller Association v. 777), restraining (53 him from

342 Mich 214 ALR2d conveyancing practicing law and except trans when incidental to the business forms being him and for which actions extra conducted be made. should ’ plain- hearing court counsel in circuit the On granted injunction should be tiff contended complaint prayer bill of in accordance judge quoted. before whom The circuit above plaintiff’s rejected claim *4 was heard matter imposed than a restraint that broader counsel County Neller Walter Ingham Bar Association imposed supra, on defendant. Company, should enjoining defendant: entered A decree was “from performing legal services for, and from legal advice giving to, any persons State of Michigan, except that may defendant engage limited to the conveyancing, out of filling standard printed forms printed by stationers, when such action is incidental to the items of business he is no transacting, extra is made therefor, and no advice or counsel is given as to legal effect and validity of such instruments.” n Prom plaintiff the decree entered appealed,, that this Court insisting should review and modify holding County its Association v. Walter Neller supra, such claim being on predicated theory protection a public, practical li- proposition, requires that a censed real-estate broker should be restrained from drafting legal and from documents forms of instruments in transactions between sellers and purchasers or real businesses estate. It will be noted injunction circuit court granted limited defendant out of print- standard ed when forms incidental to the business trans- being acted, no extra charge therefor made being given. question advice now before on us this appeal is, consequence, whether such decree should forbid the of forms in filling out customary use and, effect, transactions limit the acts of the real-estate broker to bringing prospec- tive seller and purchaser together, at- leaving torney completion of the transaction.

The bill of complaint by plaintiff filed in- sought relief junctive against basis transaction into single which he had entered and in which he was not the broker. acting he un- Rather, to give dertook advice, prepare proper strument would grant consent the chattel mortgagees the sale of the the mort- property by *5 Michigan Ktjpris. 693 Bar of a lie at time made Admittedly gagors. undisputed It is ac-

his defendant’s services. tion taken did not desired result. accomplish as injunctive decree relief with reference granted The on the of with reference part to conduct in plaintiff’s, was made specific complaint to which of handling case does not involve pleading. This a licensed real-estate an transaction ordinary retained, one or both of the parties it must contemplated think purchase sale. We is- disposed said the decree properly by the sues raised pleadings. it been this Court presented

The case as differences indicates appeal law or to “practice engage expression of the

scope (Stat 601.61 in CL 1948, § as used the law business” Ann the instant suit is based. which 27.81), on follows: entirety reads its section who is not a for any person be unlawful “It shall of this and counselor attorney regularly from prac- or disbarred is suspended or who State, or law busi- law practice tice, law, at attorney an himself as or to ; represent ness or envelope, letter return head, any sign, or to use kind what- advertising any or writing, printing his represents he or designates which or ever a law- himself a law office or of business as place yer, attorney counselor, any way rep- or law, at at or is an attorney that he to the public resent make office; rep- law or to any of business place his spoken or either to any persons person resentations person persons intended to lead such or written, making representa- the person to believe That sec- law: this Provided, at tions other attorneys to licensed apply tion shall in this State.” while temporarily States Beports. Is blanks standard forms used transactions law general acceptance the term? Clearly one who his limits activities manner indicated may *6 be to be scarcely said in the law business or to be holding himself out to public the as an attor- ney at law.

As before defendant has stated, been a licensed for a broker number of years past. The- granting licenses brokers by corporation the and commission securities of the State is governed 1919, 306, PA No (CL amended 451.201 1948, § seq., et as amended Ann [Stat 1959 Bev and Stat Ann 1961 Supp Cum 19.791 et seg.]). Under sec- tion 8 of the act, CL 1948, § 451.208, amended by (Stat PA No 112 Ann 1961 19.798), Cum Supp § the commission before granting license is author- ized to require satisfactory proof reference to honesty, truthfulness, business experience, compe- tence, reputation and of an applicant. Examination also on which required, the applicant must show “a satisfactory understanding the fundamentals of real-estate and of laws principles of real-estate conveyancing, deeds, land mortgages, contracts, leases, of a obligations broker to the public and his principal, and the provisions of the Michigan statutes defining, regulating licensing real-estate brokers and salesmen.” of the language pertaining statute to the li- brokers that censing of real-estate suggests legis- protection had in mind the of the public lature inter- also the manner in which est and businesses brokers have been generally such conducted past It is a matter of years this common knowl- State. that practice has involved the edge standard forms of instruments used in the transac- tions handled the licensed broker. The language Kupris. Bar oe qualifications and licens- relating statute claim consistent with the scarcely of brokers is ing of a broker should activities purchaser together, seller bringing limited transac- necessary steps further leaving the Obviously an there been attorney. tion to public interest re- determination legislative of such quires express prohibition acts handling particular of a real-estate part within the the decree permissive scope transaction instant in the trial court case. (cid:127)entered from other numerous cases have cited Counsel under various stat- holdings Concededly, States. however, think, "We are not harmony. utes the conclu- supports of authority clearly weight County this reached Court sion supra. As Neller v. Walter Association ques- in that case the filed from the (cid:127)obvious *7 accom- consideration, careful given at tion issue was cannot agree research. We extensive panied by the the hold- application contention plaintiff’s resulted, result, or will in that decision has ing as insofar general pub- the consequences prejudicial by of the cited counsel concerned. cases Many lic is opinion were present on the discussed appeal record be- There no showing of the Court. is have followed pernicious results fore us that are per- in 1955. that decision as rendered We pro- than rule was there suaded that stricter now The reasons required. nounced is stated at potent present of such rule are support No claim is made that were 7 they years ago. time change throughout been a there circumstances necessitating years during past the State holding by appellant. of the prior urged revision him trial made a judge before On record The decree entered the case. proper disposition 366'Michigan by presented properly cover matters not could not which, specif- concerning pleadings.- The conduct enjoined. complaint far was was So as the made ic principal question argued by briefs counsel their they fully think are answered concerned, we is the Ingham County Bar Association v. supra, holding Company, Walter Neller therein that no revision correct, this- it Court is called for at this time. Neither is neces- sary or desirable to the various discuss decisions by way authority. there cited appeal The decree from which has been taken proceeding, In affirmed. view the nature are costs allowed. Souris, Otis M. Dethmers, Kelly, Smith, Adams, JJ., concurred with Carr, C. J. (concurring). J. this case of first Were Black, impression upon reasoning I would hold, of Mm Ingham County (pp Justice Bar Case Sharpe 230-233), drafting that the instruments personal conveyed,, which title to real and transferred or otherwise affected as between con tracting parties, constitutes both law engagement and right “in the law business”. However, wrong, overwhelming majority of the- supported contrary Court has Mr. Justice Butzel’s “objection declaration that there can be no to a li doing compensa censed broker work without tion when it is incidental to his business”. County Bar Association v. Walter Neller *8 (53 777). 342 214, Mich 229 ALR2d present majority In the case like of the Court apparently concluded that stare decisis et non day. yield, quieta movere the order of the I is reluctantly, much as did Mr. Justice Fellows Ktjpris. 1962] 697 Co., & v. Detroit Taxicab Pratt Mich Transfer occasion onr 147, 151. On distinguished to end—went along predecessor—demurring they Brethren when adopted the rule remaining his found Blade v. Michigan <of Central R. evidence Co., 146 Mich 568. concurred with J., J.

Kavanagh, Black, v. ZISMAN.

GINGER Attorney Pay of One Promise of—Oral Frauds, Statute 1. Attorney. Another Debt Client’s pay attorney for services ren- attorney promise The oral speeial promise answer client by to former’s latter dered under statute is unenforceable of another that debt for the 566.132). 1948, (CL of frauds § Attorney’s Attorney n 2. Rendered Another and Client—Services Frauds. Client—Statute attorney’s against plaintiff action dismiss Motion to client, grounds based rendered latter’s for services professional canon of ethics and plaintiff had violated a frauds, grant- right recover barred the statute of ground only, pleas first affirmed ed court on the common only, by Supreme ground circuit court on second affirmed 1948, ground (CL 566.132; Canons of Pro- Court on latter 35). No fessional Ethics References for Points Headnotes Jur, fl, 60, Am Statute Frauds 90. §§ Jur, 14 Am Costs 99. £3] §§