Brummel v. Brummel

6 Citing cases

  1. Liberty Mutual Ins. v. Consol. Elec. Tech. Assoc

    Civil Action No. 06-CV-10217-DT (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2007)   Cited 2 times
    Finding "no equitable basis for avoiding application of the statute of frauds" when the plaintiff issued a bond based on an oral agreement, later increased the amount of the bond, never followed up to obtain an executed indemnity agreement, and took no action until a claim was made against the bond

    Pltf's Response Brief at 6. Both of the cases cited for this proposition, Brummel v. Brummel, 363 Mich. 447 (1961), and Hazime v. Martin Oil of Indiana, Inc., 792 F. Supp. 1067 (E.D. Mich. 1992), involved real estate transactions, not guarantees. In Brummel, the court enforced an oral contract to convey real property not only because plaintiff fully executed her obligation (namely, by building a house on the land in question), but also because the parties' agreement was evidenced by a note signed by defendants.

  2. Iconic Real Estate LLC v. ACM Inv. Grp.

    No. 356830 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022)

    "We have reaffirmed that principle time and time again," Justice MCCORMACK emphasized. North American Brokers, 502 Mich. at 884, citing Brummel v Brummel, 363 Mich. 447, 452; 109 N.W.2d 782 (1961) (citing cases). Moreover, up to that point, the Legislature had also reaffirmed this practice.

  3. Mark & Nancy Real Estate Co. v. W. Bloomfield Plaza, LLC

    No. 333325 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017)

    In other words, there is no reason that "it would be a fraud upon [plaintiff] to allow the other party to repudiate the contract" by raising the statute of frauds as a defense. Brummel v Brummel, 363 Mich 447, 452; 109 NW2d 782 (1961). Therefore, equity may not intervene and order specific performance of an alleged oral agreement. Id.; Kent Furniture Mfg Co, 111 Mich at 389-390.

  4. Oxley v. Ralston Purina Company

    349 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1965)   Cited 22 times
    In Oxley v Ralston Purina Co, 349 F.2d 328, 332 (CA 6, 1965), the court stated that "[t]he doctrine of part performance has historically been applied only to contracts involving the sale of land...."

    The language quoted by the Judge from that case is: 363 Mich. 447, 109 N.W.2d 782 (1961). "`* * * If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.

  5. N. Am. Brokers, LLC v. Howell Pub. Sch.

    913 N.W.2d 638 (Mich. 2018)

    We have reaffirmed that principle time and time again. Brummel v. Brummel , 363 Mich. 447, 452, 109 N.W.2d 782 (1961) (citing cases). So too has the Legislature.

  6. Kent v. Bell

    374 Mich. 646 (Mich. 1965)   Cited 18 times
    In Kent v. Bell, 374 Mich. 646, 652 (1965), the Supreme Court recognized the need to show special detriment when it noted that the purchaser had not pleaded with particularity what he had done " in addition to his actual hours of labor.

    The emphasis is upon the plaintiff and the consequence to him. See, also, Brummel v. Brummel, 363 Mich. 447, 452. Hunter v. Slater, 331 Mich. 1, 7, quotes from Cramer v. Ballard, 315 Mich. 496, 510: