Court Opinion

ID: 9661234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:33:19.170835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.590719
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.
(dissenting in part, concurring in part). Plaintiffs and counter-defendants sued to recover alleged damages suffered in a series of transactions involving the same piece of real estate. The principal cause of the lawsuit was plaintiffs Vermeylen’s unfortunate decision to sell the property to their coplaintiffs without bothering to go through the inconvenience of reacquiring the property from the defendant and counter-plaintiff which had already purchased the property from *644them. The trial judge found no cause of action on the plaintiffs’ complaint and awarded damages of $9,427.50 on the defendant’s counter-complaint. The plaintiffs have appealed, but appear only to challenge the dismissal of their own complaint.
I would affirm the trial judge’s ruling that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any damage to their credit rating, let alone any wrongful damage. The finding was not clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1.
I would also affirm the exclusion of certain testimony offered by the plaintiffs to contradict the terms of a fully integrated written contract for the sale of the subject property. Union Oil Co of California v Newton, 397 Mich 486; 245 NW2d 11 (1976). The plaintiffs appear to have offered no testimony except that which would have shown that the plaintiffs understood the contract to say something other than it clearly says on its face. Therefore, possible exceptions to the parol evidence rule which would allow proof of fraud are not applicable here.
Finally, I would affirm the trial judge’s ruling that plaintiffs Fiehler were not entitled to recover amounts expended for mortgage payments and improvements. The judge found that the Fiehlers had actual knowledge of the previous sale to the defendant. That finding was not clearly erroneous, GCR 1963, 517.1, and it precludes any holding that the defendant was unjustly enriched or that the Fiehlers were otherwise entitled to recover for the improvements. Etherington v Bailiff, 334 Mich 543; 55 NW2d 86 (1952).
The plaintiffs’ failure to brief or argue any matters relating to the judgment on the counter-complaint is unexplained. My vote to affirm the other rulings should not be read as expressing any opinion on that aspect of the case.
I would affirm.