Dispute over an alleged property agreement; Statute of frauds; Promissory estoppel; Opdyke Inv Co v Norris Grain Co; North Am Brokers, LLC v Howell Pub Sch; Request to amend the complaint

Finding no reversible error, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant summary disposition in this property dispute “because promissory estoppel did not apply to plaintiff’s claim and plaintiff did not sufficiently plead reliance. Further, any amendment to” the complaint would be futile “where summary disposition was granted on all counts under MCR 2.116(C)(7).” Plaintiff and defendant are father and daughter. The case concerned ownership of a piece of property that had belonged to plaintiff’s father (Eugene). Plaintiff argued that “his claim of promissory estoppel defeats defendant’s defense of statute of frauds.” The court noted that “there is a writing, a Lady Bird deed, that granted Eugene the property interest for his lifetime and then conveyed the property to defendant if Eugene did not convey the property prior to his death. There are no other writings that show Eugene conveyed the property prior to his death and no writings that memorialized any portion of the alleged agreement between the three parties. Therefore, on its face, the alleged agreement between plaintiff, defendant, and Eugene would be barred by the statute of frauds.” Plaintiff argued “that even if the agreement falls under the statute of frauds, his claims survive because of promissory estoppel.” The court concluded that the “trial court did not err when using caution and finding that promissory estoppel was not applicable. The trial court expressed apprehension to applying promissory estoppel to this situation where applying the doctrine would contradict an already established written deed. In his brief on appeal, plaintiff cited” Opdyke and North American. “The broad, overarching concepts from these cases may be relevant to the dispute here, but neither case specifically directs the trial court to apply promissory estoppel to a situation like this.” The court found that even “assuming arguendo that defendant made the promise to plaintiff that she would hold onto the property for him, plaintiff has not pleaded reasonable reliance.” It held that he “did not plausibly allege a promissory estoppel claim.” Finally, it determined that “to apply promissory estoppel here, injustice would result.” Affirmed.