Breach of contract; Whether plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence of the existence of an agreement; Brauer v. Hobbs; Mutuality of agreement; Thomas v. Leja; Rood v. General Dynamics Corp.; Rowe v. Montgomery Ward & Co.; Calhoun Cnty. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield MI

Holding that whether an agreement existed constituted a question of fact for the jury, and that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the court reversed and remanded. In 1987, plaintiff executed a quitclaim deed granting the cottage he owned to defendants (his parents). He testified that he did so because “he had lost his job and could no longer afford the mortgage payments.” They agreed to “assume the mortgage payments. According to plaintiff, the parties also reached an oral agreement that, if defendants chose at any point to sell the cottage, plaintiff would have the first opportunity to purchase the cottage on the same terms as a willing buyer.” He sued after defendants sold the cottage without allowing him the opportunity to exercise his contractual right of first refusal. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on its conclusion that there was no evidence of mutuality of agreement. It ruled that the “evidence of the agreement lacked specificity, particularly given the fact that the alleged agreement occurred over 30 years ago, and concluded that no rational trier of fact could find a legally enforceable agreement.” While it was true that “plaintiff could recall little in terms of specificity surrounding the details of the alleged agreement, plaintiff unequivocally testified that the agreement existed.” He explained that the “agreement between the parties was prefaced by a lengthy and detailed discussion regarding his grandfather and the family history surrounding the cottage.” He claimed the “significance of the cottage to the family was weighed against the financial cost of maintaining the cottage.” He also claimed the “quit claim deed was not executed until after the agreement was made and discussions were complete. Since the agreement was made, plaintiff testified that he has continued to maintain the property.” In addition, he produced a “2008 letter from his mother which referenced plaintiff’s desire to eventually buy the cottage from defendants.” It also “referenced a revocable living trust, in which plaintiff was granted the right to purchase the cottage upon defendants’ deaths.” Finally, he testified as to a 2010 phone conversation with his mother, where she said, “Don’t worry. Even if we have to let the cottage go for money reasons, you still get a crack at it first.” Based on the evidence, the court held that there was sufficient evidence presented by plaintiff to establish a question of fact as to the existence of an oral agreement.