Land contract dispute; Zurcher v Herveat; Principle that because land contracts involve an interest in lands, they are subject to the statute of frauds under MCL 566.106 & MCL 566.108; The partial-performance doctrine; Dumas v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Distinguishing Bruno v Zwirkoski; Oral agreement; Clear & convincing evidence standard

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims regarding the parties’ land contract. According to the contract, plaintiff was to make monthly payments for three years followed by a balloon payment to purchase defendants’ property. Plaintiff did not meet the ballon payment deadline and continued making monthly payments, but ten months later emailed defendant-Torres stating she was ready to close. Defendants declined, and plaintiff claimed Torres had verbally agreed to the time extension. Plaintiff sued defendants seeking specific performance of the land contract based on their failure to perform the necessary duties to finalize the transaction. Defendants moved for summary disposition on the ground that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of frauds and her own breach of the contract. Plaintiff claimed she raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Torres agreed to extend the balloon-payment deadline, and that the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds applied. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the court found that because plaintiff could not “produce a writing supported by consideration indicating that the parties agreed to extend the balloon-payment deadline, any verbal agreement to that effect was unenforceable under the statute of frauds.” In addition, because the “contract specifically noted that the monthly installments were insufficient to pay the full obligation” plaintiff’s conduct did “not amount to substantial performance of the contract to warrant the partial-performance exception.” Further, given “the lack of clarity in plaintiff’s own testimony, she failed to meet her burden of establishing an oral agreement by clear and convincing evidence.” Affirmed.