Negligence claim against a bank related to a failed loan transaction; Duty; Ulrich v Federal Land Bank of St Paul; Smith v First Nat’l Bank & Trust; Hills of Lone Pine Assoc v Texel Land Co; Promissory estoppel; MCL 566.132(2); Crown Tech Park v D&N Bank, FSB; Tortious interference

The court held that plaintiffs’ negligence claim failed because defendant-bank did not owe a duty of care to a loan applicant. Further, given that they did not provide any “written ‘promise or commitment to lend money, grant or extend credit, or make any other financial accommodation,’” MCL 566.132(2) barred their promissory estoppel claim. Finally, they did not allege that defendant-Adams (the bank’s Vice President of Lending) did anything rising to the level of tortious interference. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiff-Montijo acted as broker for plaintiffs-Thomas and Kokkatt in trying to obtain a commercial loan. Adams handled the matter for the bank. The court noted that plaintiffs did not explain why it should not apply Ulrich here. The essence of their case was the claim that “Thomas and Kokkatt applied for a commercial loan, and that the bank committed to funding that loan but subsequently failed to deliver on its promise, causing financial injury to plaintiffs.” While they relied on Smith and Hills of Lone Pine, those cases were “inapposite, as the present case does not involve an alleged breach of the terms of an escrow agreement. The trial court properly relied on this Court’s holding in Ulrich to rule that defendants in this case owed plaintiffs no duty of care, and that plaintiffs’ negligence claim failed as a matter of law.” As to their promissory estoppel claim, the only document they relied on was a letter from Adams to Montijo. That document clearly stated “that it was not a commitment to lend, but was a ‘presentation for discussion purposes only.’” As to the tortious interference claims, “plaintiffs alleged that Adams contacted Montijo’s clients and dealt with those clients directly regarding their banking business, cutting Montijo out of the role of broker. The trial court held that defendants were entitled to summary disposition on” these claims because there was no allegation “that defendants’ conduct was illegal, unethical, or fraudulent.” The court agreed that summary disposition on these claims was proper.