Whether the statute of frauds (SOF) barred the plaintiffs claim for broker commission on a promissory estoppel theory; Odom v. Wayne Cnty.; MCL 566.132; Crown Tech Park v. D&N Bank, FSB; MCL 566.132(1)(e); Whether promissory estoppel applies to a broker for sale sign; Opdyke Inv. Co. v. Norris Grain Co.; Promissory estoppel; Joerger v. Gordon Food Serv., Inc.; Validity of the judicially created promissory estoppel exception to the legislative SOF; Distinguishing Crown Tech Park; Prior application of the promissory estoppel exception to the SOF to a case involving MCL 566.132(1); Kelly-Stehney & Assoc., Inc. v. MacDonald’s Indus. Prods., Inc.; The Supreme Court’s determination that promissory estoppel is an exception to the SOF; Paige v. City of Sterling Heights; People v. Strickland

The court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on the plaintiffs-Brokers’ claim of promissory estoppel and remanded. They asserted in their complaint that in late 2013, they worked with defendant-St. John Providence, which is not a party to this appeal, to develop a concept that required a particular type of property. The Brokers believed that the property, which defendant-Howell Public Schools (the Schools) had for sale, suited their concept. It had a for-sale sign that indicated it was “broker protected.” The Brokers approached St. John Providence about it. “The Schools and St. John Providence eventually reached a purchase agreement through another real estate agency. In the end, the Brokers received no commission.” They sued the Schools and St. John Providence, alleging a variety of claims that included a count of promissory estoppel. They contended that the trial court erred by granting the Schools’ motion for summary disposition because the SOF did not bar their claim for broker commission on a promissory estoppel theory. The court reluctantly agreed. The for-sale sign on the property was not a signed writing for the purposes of the SOF. The Brokers alleged that the “‘broker protected’ sign was a promise that induced them to cultivate St. John Providence as a buyer and otherwise properly pleaded an action for promissory estoppel.” They pleaded a claim of promissory estoppel. The trial court granted summary disposition on the basis that the SOF “barred the Brokers’ contract claims and governmental immunity barred its negligence claims. But because promissory estoppel remains an exception to the” SOF, the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on the Brokers’ promissory estoppel claim.