Breach of contract claim as to retirement benefits; Bank of Am, NA v First Am Title Ins Co; Requirement that the contract be attached to the complaint; Whether defendant waived an affirmative defense; Unjust enrichment; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5813 & 600.5815; Element of defendant’s retention of a benefit; The continuing wrongs doctrine; Administrative law judge (ALJ)

Concluding that plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim failed for several reasons, that his breach of contract claim was “fatally flawed[,]” and that defendant did not waive the affirmative defense that no agreement existed, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. “Plaintiff alleged that after his contract was not renewed in 2009, he was appointed by defendant’s school board to the position of Executive Director of Student Affairs at Wayne State University.” The case arose after he failed to receive a multiplier that he alleged he was supposed to receive as part of an early buyout package upon retirement. As to his claim that defendant’s retention of all of his retirement benefits constituted unjust enrichment, the court first held that this claim would be barred by the statute of limitations. “Absent a date from plaintiff as to when the breach occurred, the ALJ’s findings established that plaintiff knew as early as 2010 and as late as 2011 that he was being denied incentivized retirement benefits, however, he did not file the complaint in the instant matter until over six years later in 2018.” In addition, his reliance on the continuing wrongs doctrine failed given that it is not longer recognized in this state. Finally, he could not prove the element of defendant’s retention of a benefit given that it was not the holder of his retirement funds. Although “defendant received the benefit of plaintiff’s labor and length of employment,” it was not the entity responsible for paying his retirement benefits. The court next concluded that even if the trial court erred in determining that he failed to attach the contract to his complaint, and he “either included the entire contract or supplemented his complaint with the additional page alleged to have been omitted, his breach of contract complaint would not have survived legal scrutiny and defeat.” He did not present any “proof of the promises upon which his contractual claim was based: entitlement to an early buyout and a multiplier for six (6) years post retirement. if he worked for Detroit Public Schools for one day between the period of time between” 11/1/09 and 5/1/10. While he asserted he was conveyed this information, he failed to offer any “basis upon which to legally augment, supplement, or modify a written contract.”