Landlord-tenant dispute; Offer-of-judgment sanctions; MCR 2.405(D); Interest-of-justice exception; Luidens v 63rd Dist Court; Mitigation of damages; Lease breach; Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Puffery; Van Tassel v McDonald Corp

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-landlord’s motion for offer-of-judgment sanctions, but did not err by denying plaintiffs partial summary disposition on mitigation or by rejecting their fraudulent-misrepresentation theory. Plaintiffs signed a two-year lease for a loft but moved out almost immediately after encountering a neighbor. They then sued to void the lease while defendant counterclaimed for unpaid rent. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court miscalculated the offer-of-judgment comparison because defendant’s written offer was a “sum certain” of $4,710, not the larger amount plaintiffs proposed by adding the security deposit, prepaid rent, and future rent. Because the adjusted verdict was far more favorable to defendant than the offer, sanctions applied. The court also rejected the interest-of-justice exception, explaining that the $4,710 offer was not “de minimis” and instead reflected “a sincere effort at negotiation” to avoid protracted litigation. The court next held that plaintiffs were not entitled to summary disposition on mitigation because reasonable minds could differ over whether defendant acted reasonably by relisting the loft in 12/23, given that plaintiffs had prepaid rent and the security deposit covered part of the vacancy period. Finally, the court held that the property manager’s statements that the lofts “go quick” and that others were interested were nonactionable puffery, not fraudulent misrepresentations, because they were promotional statements or vague references to unnamed interested parties. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.