 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheron12/26/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
10:05 a.m.
Plaintiff appeals by right from an order reducing its damage award against defendants by an amount that plaintiff received pursuant to a settlement agreement in a prior action. Plaintiff also appeals an order granting mediation sanctions to defendants under MCR 2.403(O). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This case arises out of plaintiff's purchase of a motel from Midwest Innkeepers (Midwest). Defendants facilitated plaintiff's purchase of the motel from Midwest. After the purchase, plaintiff discovered that the motel was unable to generate sufficient income and sued Midwest, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. Subsequently, plaintiff and Midwest settled the suit; Midwest agreed to pay plaintiff $175,000 and to rescind the contract to purchase the motel, and plaintiff signed a covenant not to sue.
Several months later, plaintiff sued defendants, alleging intentional misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiff claims on appeal that its total damages were $532,779 but that it only sought $357,779 in the suit against defendants because it subtracted the $175,000 received under the settlement agreement with Midwest.
Following a bench trial, the trial court found for plaintiff on its innocent misrepresentation claim against defendants and awarded $57,000 in damages. Subsequently, the trial court subtracted the $175,000 settlement amount from this damage award under MCL 600.2925d; MSA 27A.2925(4), thereby reducing the damage award to zero. It is from this action that plaintiff appeals.
Before March 28, 1996, MCL 600.2925d; MSA 27A.2925(4) stated as follows:
When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to 1 of 2 or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death:
(a) It does not discharge any of the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide.
(b) It reduces the claim against the other tort-feasors to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant or to the extent of the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater.
(c) It discharges the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other tort-feasor.
On March 28, 1996, an amendment to the statute took effect; this amendment eliminated the language in subsection b. PA 1995 161, the act amending the statute, stated that the amendment to § 2925d applied "to cases filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory act." PA 1995 161, § 3. PA 1995 161 further stated that " his amendatory act shall take effect September 1, 1995." PA 1995 161, § 4. However, PA 1995 161 was not approved and filed until September 29, 1995 and was not ordered to take immediate effect. Accordingly, it took effect on the general effective date for 1995 legislation: March 28, 1996. See Const 1963, art 4, § 27.
Plaintiff contends that the September 1, 1995 effective date stated in PA 1995 161 should govern the statutory amendment and that the amendment should therefore apply to the instant case because plaintiff filed suit against defendants on October 5, 1995. We disagree. This issue involves statutory interpretation, which is subject to de novo review. Shields v Shell Oil Co, 237 Mich App 682, 688; 604 NW2d 719 (1999).
In Selk v Detroit Plastic Products (On Resubmission), 419 Mich 32, 35 n 2; 348 NW2d 652 (1984), the Supreme Court indicated that when a public act states that the act shall apply to all actions pending or commenced on or after the effective date of the ac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|