The Honorable Greg ory L . Fr ost, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0756n.06 F iled: October 24, 2007 No. 06-2127 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
PL ANTE AN D MORAN CRESA, L .L .C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. KAPPA ENTERPRI SES, L .L .C.; FL AGSTAR BA NK; UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : COL E and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and F ROST, District J udg e. *
PER CU RIAM . Pl a int if

f P lante & Mo ra

n Cr e sa , L L C ( “ P& MC” ) o ri g in ally br ou g ht t his action in state c ourt, alleg ing various state-law claims of bre ach of contra ct, unjust enrichment, a nd fo re c los ur e of

a c on str uc tio n li en a g a ins t K a

pp a En te rp ri se s, L L C. P& MC s e e ks $1 05 ,0 00 in additional compensation for the consulting service s it pr ovided following flooding and construc tion de lay s at K a

pp a ’s Ha wtho rn e Sui te s H ote l, c la imi ng thi s w or k w e nt a bo ve and be y on d th e pa

rt ie s’No. 06-2127

Plan te & Mo ra n Cr esa , LLC v . Ka pp a E nte rs. , LLC

, e t al

.

- 2 - or ig ina l c on tr a c t. B e c a

us e F la g sta

r B ank and

the Un ite d St a te s Sma ll B us ine ss A dmi nis tr a tio n h e ld mortg ag es ag ainst the hotel, Michig an law r equire d P&MC to add them as de fenda nts. Mich. Comp. L aws § 570.1117(4) . After the Small Business Administration r emoved the case to fede ral district
co u rt , 2 8 U.S.C. § 1444, Kappa a nd Flag star moved f

or summary

judgme nt. The district court g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r of th e de fe nd ants , c on c lud ingthat un de r t he pr e e xistin g du ty rule P& MC’s contrac t obligate d it to provide—at the ag ree d contra ct price —the servic es for which it seeks the additional compe nsation, and that P&MC’s unjust enric hment claim failed in light of the written contra ct g overningthe transa ction.
After revie wing the re cord, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, a nd having had the be ne fi t of or a l arg ume nt, we fi nd

no e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt of summa

ry jud g me nt. See Plan te & Mo ra n Cr esa , LLC v . Ka pp a E nte rs. , LLC , No. 05-60112, 2006 WL 1676411 (E.D. Mich. J une 9, 2006). The district court cor rec tly ex p l ai n ed why

the pre exis ting duty

rule ba rs P&MC’s claims and we adopt its explanation of that bar . In response to P&MC’s stance that the pre exis ting duty rule lac ks the requisite vitality to steer the g rant of summar y judgme nt, we add the following discussion to our adoption of the district court’ s opinion. P&MC questions gr ounding this dec ision on the p re ex i s t i n g duty rule in lig ht of the skepticism of t he Mi chig an C ourt of Appeals in Bo rg-W ar ne r Ac c e pta nc e Cor

p. v . De p’ t of Sta te , 426 N.W.2d 71 7 , 7 1 9 (Mi ch. Ct. App. 1988), rev’d on other grounds , 444 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1989), “not[ing] a

g rowingdoubt in the soundness of this doctrine.” Borg-W arner sug g ested thatNo. 06-2127

Plan te & Mo ra n Cr esa , LLC v . Ka pp a E nte rs. , LLC

, e t al

.

- 3 - the rule “ should never be used as a major pre mise of a deci s i o n wi t h o ut car eful thoug ht to the circ umstances of

a par ticular case, to the m oral postures of t he parties, and to the socia l fee lings a nd interests that ar e involved.” Id. (citing 1A Corbin on Contracts § 171, at 105). That one Michig an state cour t expresses the view that it and other Michig an cour

ts should re evaluate a pa

rticular statelaw doctr ine ca

nnot be labele d “contr olling Michig an law.” Appellant’s B r. at 2 1
. I n fac t, when Bo rg-W ar ne r rea ched Mic higa

n’s hig hest court, that c ourt, thoug h rec og nizi ng the lower court’s distaste for the rule, conclude d that the “pre exis ting- duty rule a s applied to modifications of existi ng contra cts is not called into play” and instead resolved the case on a pree x isting statutory duty . 444 N.W.2d at 788 & n.3. At most, Borg-W arner left the que stion for another day
. B y a ll a c c ounts , the Mic hig an Sup re me Court ans we re d that qu e sti on wh e n it late r c ite d it s opinion in Borg-W

arner for the pr oposition t hat t he preexist ing duty “rule bars the modification of
an e xistin g c on tr a c tua l r e latio ns hip wh e n th e purp or te d co ns ide ra

tio n f or the mod if

ic a tio n c on sis ts of the pe rfor

mance or promis e to perf

orm that which one party

was a lrea dy

require d to do under the terms o f t h e ex isting ag ree ment.” Y erkov ich v. AAA , 610 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Mich. 2000) (c iting Borg-W arner , 444 N.W.2d at 788 n.3). Despite c riticism of the rule, e.g. , Angel v. M urray , 322 A.2d 630, 634–37 (R.I
. 1 9 7 4 ), Michig an cour ts continue to cite Y

erkov ich positively , e.g. , 46 th Circ uit Tria l Co ur t v . Crawf

or d Co un ty , 7 19 N. W.2 d 553 , 568 (M ic h. 20 06 ). “ I n d e c idi ngqu e sti on s o f s tateNo. 06-2127

Plan te & Mo ra n Cr esa , LLC v . Ka pp a E nte rs. , LLC

, e t al

.

Mic hig an’ s la

w p ro vid e s a

path a ro un d th e pr e e xistin g du ty ru le in c e rt a in c ir c ums tanc e s. 1 I f par ties to a contra ct consider

modification mutually

benef icial, such an ag ree ment will not fail for lack of consideration provid ed t h e agr eement is in writing and sig ned by the par ty ag ainst whom enfor ceme nt is soug ht. See Mich. Comp. L aws § 566.1 (stating that “ [a] n ag ree ment here afte r made to chang e or modify

. . . any contra ct .
. . shall not be invalid beca use of the a

bsence of consider ation [i f] the ag ree ment chang ing . . . suc h contra ct [ is] in writing a nd signe d by

the par ty ag ainst whom it is sought to e nforc e the chang e”)
. But P&MC has come forwa rd with no writing signe d by Kappa evidenc ing the alleg ed modification. Cf. Adell Broad. Co. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc. , 708 N.W.2d 778, 782 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (“ I n this case, the pa rties waive d cer

tain terms of their or igina l ag ree ment in a sig ned wr iting. In doing so, the parties considere d the chang es to their adva ntag e.”)
. - 4 - law . . . we follow the pronounc ements of the state cour ts.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Barge r , 910 F.2d 321, 325 ( 6th Cir. 1990). 1
Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m.