Representative Cases on Appeal Published Opinions Bakian v Nat'l City Bank (In re Estate of Moukalled), 269 Mich App 708; 714 NW2d 400 (2006). Petitioner and decedent had, without attorneys, drafted and executed promissory notes and a document entitled “Security Agreement” in which the decedent agreed to apply all of his personal and real property assets to secure a cash loan given by petitioner. Following decedent’s death, Nat’l City Bank, a competing creditor, objected to the petitioner's claim. In an appeal from the Oakland County Probate Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Article 9 of the UCC did not reference transactions intended to create a security interest in real estate or land and that decedent's interest in vacant lots was, as a matter of law, not an interest in personal property but an interest in realty. The Court further held, however, that the petitioner had successfully asserted an equitable lien on the decedent’s real property through the security agreement because the agreement reflected a clear intent by the parties to use an identifiable piece of property as security for the promissory notes. To view the full Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion, click here. Laier v Kitchen, 266 Mich App 482, 484; 702 NW2d 199 (2005). In Laier, the plaintiff's decedent was killed in an accident on the defendant's property while assisting the defendant with repairs on a front-end loader. During the repairs, the bucket loader dropped, killing the decedent. In addition to alleging premises liability, the plaintiff also alleged that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to use due care and caution in operation and control of the tractor and bucket. The trial court dimissed plaintiff's claims under the open and obvious doctrine. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that this claim was one of ordinary negligence because the defendant's conduct was the alleged basis of liability, independent of premises liability. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the open and obvious doctrine is inapplicable to an ordinary negligence claim, as distinguished from a premises liability claim. To view the full Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion, click here. Kallabat v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 256 Mich App 146; 662 NW2d 97 (2003). In this no-fault action, plaintiff insured sought payment from his insurer of reasonably necessary medical expenses under MCL § 500.3107. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not required to submit direct evidence from the treating physician that the expenses incurred were both reasonable and reasonably necessary in order for the plaintiff to prevail. Rather, the jury is entitled to consider all the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and the permissible inferences arisng therefrom, to decide whether the plaintiff had proven by a preponderance that the expenses were reasonable and necessary. The insured was held to have presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that expenses incurred with two treating physicians were reasonable and necessary so as to survive the insurer's motion for directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where testimony from a third treating physician permitted the jury to reasonably infer that the treatment rendered by the other two physicians was necessary and related to the accident, and where the insured provided the jury with itemized bills for every expense. To view the full Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion, click here. Bancroft v Tecumseh Prods. Co., 949 F Supp 1294 (D Mich 1996). Plaintiff, a beneficiary under a health plan governed by ERISA, was denied coverage for corrective surgery for macromastia, a condition which caused her severe chronic back and neck pain. She filed a claim against the insurer and the spouse's employer as the provider of the insurance under ERISA. The United States District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered the spouse's employer to pay benefits. The court held that the spouse's employer violated ERISA by failing to comply with the procedural requirements of ERISA § 1133 and violated 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(f) because the denial letters sent to the insured never gave specific reasons for the rejection. The court stated that defendant insurer failed to provide the plaintiff with a description of material or information that would assist her in perfecting her claim. The court stated that defendant did not adhere to its own insurance plan guidelines, that the insured provided objective medical evidence that she was covered by the policy, and that defendant could not support its argument that weight reduction had to occur prior to the surgery. To view the full Federal District Court Opinion, click here. City of Kalamazoo v Department of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132; 580 NW2d 475 (1998). The City of Kalamazoo filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief seeking to prevent the Michigan Department of Corrections from locating a new community corrections center on the grounds of a psychiatric hospital after the DOC had received funds under an appropriations act requiring the DOC to first obtain approval of the placement by the local governing body. In the first appeal, a panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the appropriations bill was constitutional under the Title-Object Clause of the state constitution, and therefore validly placed a condition on defendant's use of appropriations for community corrections facilities, and that the trial court had erred in dismissing the city's complaint. On remand, the trial court improperly revisited the issue of legislative intent and ruled that the DOC's authority to control the placement of the community corrections center was not subject to the express condition contained in the appropriations bill, failing to follow the law of the case established in the city's first appeal. In this second appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that no exception to the Law of the Case Doctrine applied because there was no change in the relevant law and a "change" in the language of the appropriations acts referred to in the trial court's opinion occurred before the initial decision of the appellate court. The judgment of the trial court, which dismissed the city's action against the department of corrections for declaratory and injunctive relief, was reversed. To view the full Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion, click here. Home Why Hire Appellate Counsel? For Trial Counsel Appellate Links Attorneys Contact Us Findlaw Profile Lawyers.com Profile Martindale Hubbell Profile Our law office provides assistance on appeal throughout the State of Michigan, including the Upper Peninsula, Washtenaw County, Livingston County, Wayne County, Oakland County, Ingham County, Macomb County and Jackson County, as well as communities such as Detroit, Southfield, Grand Rapids, Port Huron, Traverse City, Grosse Pointe, Dearborn, Lansing, Livonia, Northville, Plymouth, Birmingham, Farmington Hills, Bloomfield Hills, Novi, Pontiac, Royal Oak, Troy, Mt. Clemens, Sterling Heights, and Rochester Hills. Disclaimer - The information contained in this website, and its associated web sites, is provided as a service to the Internet community, and does not constitute legal advice or a contract for legal services. We try to provide quality information, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this web site and its associated sites. As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.