Summary proceedings; MCL 600.5735; MCR 4.201(C)(1); Procedural due process; Expedited proceedings; Distinguishing Lindsey v Normet; Motion to adjourn; MCR 4.201(J); Harmless error; Alleged implied-in-fact land contract; Statute of frauds (SOF); Partial performance; Effect of the existence of a written lease

The court held that because the parties’ relationship was governed by a written lease, a land contract could not be implied in fact. As a result, any procedural error due to defendants’ inability to offer fact-specific evidence about “the alleged implied-in-fact land contract was harmless error.” Thus, the court affirmed the circuit court’s order that affirmed the district court’s order awarding plaintiff possession of the property at issue. Defendants leased the property pursuant to the written lease but claimed “there was an understanding among the parties at the time that they would be purchasing the” property via land contract. When defendants stopped making payments to plaintiff, she initiated summary proceedings to evict them. Defendants argued on appeal that “the summary proceedings violated procedural due process because they were not allowed a realistic time period to present fact-specific evidence showing that the parties’ relationship was governed by an implied-in-fact land contract, not the written lease.” The court found that they had “a reasonable argument that the expedited proceedings violated procedural due process. While the seven-day period complied with the relevant statutes and court rules, that may not be sufficient time to prepare evidence, witnesses, and so forth to determine whether the parties had an implied-in-fact land contract.” However, they failed to “explain how this arguable violation of procedural due process would entitle them to relief.” In addition, they did not “show that an implied-in-fact land contract would be enforceable. Simply put, defendants’ fact-specific arguments are beside the point because the terms of the written lease control.” To the extent they asserted they spent $40,000 improving the “property in reliance on that implied-in-fact land contract, defendants may maintain a separate action for unjust enrichment.” Thus, the court held that any possible procedural due process violation was harmless error. Any error in denying their motion to adjourn to permit them to gather evidence about the home improvements they made was also harmless given that “the terms of the written lease controlled the parties’ relationship.” Finally, their argument that partial performance removed the oral land contract from the SOF was “meritless because a contract cannot be implied in fact when there is an express contract covering the same subject matter.”