Claim for breach of an alleged oral joint venture agreement; Price v Nellist; Youngs v Read; Stewart v Young

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court found that based on the existing record, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the parties (brothers) “had an oral agreement to share proceeds and income from” a property that continued to be in effect after a conveyance. But under the circumstances, it concluded defendant should have the opportunity to move for summary disposition again based on the lack of a genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff’s claim there was an enforceable oral contract. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached a “joint venture agreement to share income and proceeds from” a parcel of real property. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition on the basis “plaintiff could not enforce an oral agreement to distribute income from real property.” The court affirmed but the Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment that ruled the statute of frauds (SOF) barred plaintiff’s claims and remanded as to whether there was a question of fact regarding “a post-2015 sale oral agreement.’” Plaintiff’s supporting proofs consisted of his “affidavit and e-mail printouts referencing the alleged agreement.” His e-mail statements “referred to the property as ‘our Colwood farm.’ He stated his intent ‘to maximize my return from this investment at this time.’ Defendant’s response stated, ‘it would be fair to say that the amounts you have received for your interest in the farm are detailed on the settlement statement,’ which [he] calculated at a value of $98,700. This statement indirectly suggested that [he] believed that plaintiff’s 2015 conveyance extinguished plaintiff’s interest.” But he stated in a 2018 “e-mail that he was ‘willing to pay [plaintiff] to do the work to get the property sold.’ This statement indirectly suggested that [he] believed that plaintiff still had an interest in the property.” In his affidavit, plaintiff stated the parties agreed he “‘would continue to share equally in future recovery from the Colwood Farm investment property.’ This statement supported” his claim of a continuing interest. But the court noted that defendant’s “summary disposition motion did not address the existence of an oral contract.” It did not anticipate the Supreme Court’s ruling that the SOF does not bar oral joint venture agreements as to income from real property, and “plaintiff’s response did not directly address arguments other than the” SOF issue. Reversed and remanded.