Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Berman v. Vigliotti
Citations: 60 N.W.2d 428; 337 Mich. 454; 1953 Mich. LEXIS 410Docket: Docket 69; Calendar 45,796
Court: Michigan Supreme Court; October 5, 1953; Michigan; State Supreme Court
Plaintiff Berman filed a lawsuit in the common pleas court of Detroit seeking recovery of a $1,000 down payment on a real estate purchase agreement, which he rescinded due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the defendants, Vigliotti. The common pleas court ruled against Berman, finding insufficient evidence of fraud, a decision upheld by the circuit court on appeal. Berman had entered into an agreement to purchase real estate that included multiple lots in the Super Van Dyke subdivision. The defendants' agent, Mr. McIntyre, represented that certain lots had been sold to the State Highway Department for road widening, implying that the remaining lots would still have valuable frontage on Van Dyke Avenue. However, Berman asserted that he later learned the State had changed its policy and was selling the lots back to private owners, thus negating the promised frontage. Berman provided testimony indicating he was unaware of the changes regarding the land's status until after completing the purchase. The case underscores issues of misrepresentation in real estate transactions and the importance of clear communication regarding property status. The testimony identifies that the land in question was marked as sold to the State of Michigan, which was confirmed by Mr. McIntyre during discussions. The witness acknowledged that the plat for the lots facing Van Dyke was the only one they had, indicating a clear representation of the property's frontage. The value of the land was tied to its business frontage along Van Dyke, as opposed to interior lots, with the witness stating they would not have purchased the land if it had not been represented as having Van Dyke frontage. Following the transaction, Mr. McIntyre informed the witness that the State was selling the land, which they were previously unaware of. The document also notes that the plaintiff's offer to purchase did not guarantee that the land fronted Van Dyke. The claim of fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr. McIntyre was not substantiated, as there was no evidence that he or the defendants were aware of the State's intentions regarding the lots at the time of the sale. Additionally, any changes in the State's policy regarding the sale of the land occurred after the transaction and could not retroactively affect the validity of McIntyre's statements. The trial court's judgment was upheld, affirming that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence for a favorable judgment. The case is remanded for further necessary actions, with costs awarded to the defendants.