JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget

5 Citing cases

  1. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Winget

    No. 21-1568 (6th Cir. Jul. 1, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    This case involves Larry Winget's revocable trust, which "held most, if not all, of Winget's assets." JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 901 F.Supp.2d 955, 961 (E.D. Mich. 2012). As if to make this even easier, Winget is the Trust's settlor, trustee, and sole beneficiary.

  2. BR N. 223, LLC v. Glieberman

    Case No. 13-mc-50297 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 10, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, Defendants concluded that the Consent Order prohibited both Defendant Glieberman individually and also the Trust from transferring assets. To this end, Defendants relied upon the holding in JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Winget, 901 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2012), which found, "[a]s settlor, Winget owned the assets in the Winget Trust. See MCL ยง 556.128. The Winget Trust was essentially Winget's alter ego.

  3. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Winget

    Case Number 08-13845 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2021)

    In the earlier decision, Judge Cohn held that the trust was Winget's "alter ego." JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 901 F. Supp. 2d 955, 972 (E.D. Mich. 2012). But, as noted, Chase timely appealed that decision and it was reversed.

  4. Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Eagle Auto-Mall Corp.

    Case No. 14-12964 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2015)

    There is a heavy presumption under Michigan law that "a deliberately prepared and executed [agreement] manifest[s] the true intention[s] of the parties, especially between counseled businessmen," and that "a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption." JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 901 F. Supp. 2d 955, 972 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 797 F. Supp. 2d 254, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)). It is true that a court of equity is empowered to reform a contract, but only when necessary to make it conform to the agreement actually made by the contracting parties.

  5. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Workers of America v. General Motors, LLC

    986 F. Supp. 2d 862 (E.D. Mich. 2013)

    29, (2009 WL 440900 (E.D.Mich. Feb.23, 2009)) and Doc. 365 (901 F.Supp.2d 955 (E.D.Mich.2012)).VI. ConclusionFor the reasons stated above, GM's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.