Case Name: SHEPHERD & SHEPHERD v. DEITZ
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1974-01-16
Citations: 51 Mich. App. 292
Docket Number: Docket No. 16398
Parties: SHEPHERD & SHEPHERD v DEITZ
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Danhof and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 51
Pages: 292–298

Head Matter:
SHEPHERD & SHEPHERD v DEITZ
Opinion of the Court
1. Appeal and Error — Findings of Fact — Conclusions of Law — De Novo Review.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law of a trial court will not be reversed where upon de novo review it is found that the record supports the findings of fact and that the conclusions of law are in accord with the findings of fact, and where the Court of Appeals would not have decided differently.
Dissent by O’Hara, J.
2. Specific Performance — Lease—Purchase and Sale Agreement.
SpeciBc performance of a lease executed after a valid purchase and sale agreement for the premises was consummated should not be judicially approved.
Appeal from Newaygo, Charles A. Wickens, J.
Submitted Division 3 December 4, 1973, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 16398.)
Decided January 16, 1974.
Leave to appeal granted, Court of Appeals reversed for reasons stated in dissent, and remanded for entry of judgment of no cause of action, 392 Mich 754.
Complaint by Shepherd & Shepherd against Cal Deitz, Cal Deitz Realty, Benny Brock, and Orrin Bush for specific performance of a lease. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 820 et seq.-
Advantage which the original trier of facts enjoyed over reviewing court from opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses, 111 ALR 742.
[2] 55 Am Jur,- Vendor and Purchaser § 313.
49 Am Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant §§ 11, 1004.
Construction of provision for termination of lease in event of sale of property, 163 ALR 1019.
McCroskey, Libner, VanLeuven, Kortering, Cochrane & Brock, P. C. for plaintiff.
Landman, Hathaway, Latimer, Clink & Robb (by William F McNally), for defendants.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Danhof and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, P. J.
This is an equity action dealing with the validity of a lease.
E. E. Henning and Henrietta Osthaus were appointed as attorneys in fact with authority to manage and dispose of the property of Dr. and Mrs. Moore. After Dr. Moore's death the property was put up for sale. A written offer to purchase, dated March 25, 1970, was submitted to Henning by defendant Deitz in the amount of $40,000.
Plaintiff law firm, Shepherd & Shepherd, were long-time tenants of the building under a lease. Henning and Henrietta Osthaus agreed to give plaintiffs first chance to purchase. Plaintiffs indicated they would give up their first purchase option for a long-term protective lease covering their offices in the building.
Plaintiffs and Henning executed a ten-year lease prior to Henning signing the purchase agreement with defendants, although Henrietta Osthaus did not sign the lease until three days later.
The trial court granted specific performance of the lease to plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.
Defendants contend: (1) the purchase agreement was executed first giving them control of the property; (2) the co-attorneys did not act jointly according to the power granted in executing the lease; (3) they had no knowledge of the existence of the lease upon receipt of the executed purchase agreement from Henning which would estop them from denying the lease.
The court made the following findings:
1. The lease was executed prior to the purchase agreement.
2. Henning had the responsibility for decision making on the handling of property and co-attorney in fact, Osthaus, did the bookkeeping and leg work. This had been their course of dealing in the past. The late signing by Osthaus did not effect the validity of the lease because the signing related back and ratified the act of her co-attorney making it a joint act.
3. The court found, as a fact, that defendant and co-partner Brock had knowledge of the executed lease agreement which was imputable to co-purchaser Deitz upon the agency theory that knowledge of one partner is knowledge to all.
As a result of our careful and de novo review, we find the record supports these findings of fact. We also are convinced that the court's conclusions of law are in accord with its fact finding. We would not have decided differently.
Affirmed. Costs to plaintiffs.
Danhof, J., concurred.