Is a Verbal Agreement Legal?

Is a Verbal Agreement Legal?

Apr 2, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Crime, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Is Oral Legal?

Verbal agreements, also called oral contracts, can be legal and enforceable in Michigan, but with some limitations.

Here’s a breakdown:

Generally Enforceable: Michigan law recognizes verbal contracts as valid if they meet the standard elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, and consideration (exchange of something of value).

Statute of Frauds: However, there’s a law called the Statute of Frauds that requires certain contracts to be in writing and signed to be enforceable.

These include:

  • Agreements that won’t be performed within one year of making the agreement.
  • Promises to answer for the debt of another person.
  • Selling real estate.
  • Selling goods for over $1,000.

Difficulties in Court: Even if your verbal agreement isn’t subject to the Statute of Frauds, it can be difficult to enforce in court. This is because there’s no written record of the agreement, so it becomes a “he-said, she-said” situation.

To Sum it Up: Verbal agreements can be legal in Michigan, but it’s always better to have a written contract, especially for important agreements. A written contract provides clear evidence of the terms and reduces the risk of misunderstandings or someone backing out of the agreement.

If you’re unsure whether your verbal agreement needs to be in writing or you need help enforcing a verbal agreement, it’s best to consult with an attorney.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

What’s the law?

There isn’t a specific MCL dedicated solely to verbal agreements in Michigan. However, the relevant statute that applies to the enforceability of certain contracts based on form is the Statute of Frauds. This is found in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) under Article 2 on Sales:

This MCL outlines the types of contracts that must be in writing and signed to be enforceable in court. These include:

  • Agreements that can’t be performed within one year (MCL 566.132(1)(a))
  • Promises to guarantee another’s debt (MCL 566.132(1)(b))

Michigan’s UCC also has a separate provision under Article 2 for the sale of goods:

This MCL requires any contract for the sale of goods for more than $1,000 to be in writing to be enforceable.

So, while there’s no single MCL for verbal agreements, these two provisions (MCL 566.132 and MCL 440.2201) are the key ones to consider when determining if a verbal agreement needs to be written down in Michigan.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: I made a verbal agreement and shook hands with my friend for a $20 bet that he couldn’t eat a spoonful of cinnamon. He did. Am I legally obligated to pay him?

Answer: Some questions don’t need legal advice. Pay him the $20 and don’t bet anymore.

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Another Case Dismissed

Another Case Dismissed

December 6, 2022 - Through the diligence and tenacity of trial attorney Michael Komorn and the team at Komorn Law. We are proud to announce - another case dismissed.

read more
News Scrape November 2022

News Scrape November 2022

Search Results Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Featured Attorney Award winning Attorney Michael Komorn owner and Trial Attorney for his firm Komorn Law PLLC is based...

read more
The Right to a Jury Trial

The Right to a Jury Trial

When facing criminal charges you have the right to have a trial by jury. The justice system will offer you the right to a jury trial. It's just a matter if you can...

read more

Squatters and the Law in Michigan

Squatters and the Law in Michigan

Apr 1, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Crime, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Squatters and You

Squatting, in one definition is the act of occupying a property without legal permission, can be a headache for both property owners and squatters themselves. Sorry to cause you a such a headache squatter.

Michigan has specific laws addressing squatting, offering some protection to owners while outlining potential consequences for squatters.

Here’s One…

MCL 750.553: Criminal Trespass

Michigan criminalizes squatting in single-family dwellings and one or both units in a two-family dwelling through MCL 750.553. This law defines “occupies” as physically living within the structure.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

  • No Consent: The squatter must have never had the owner’s consent to occupy the property.
  • Penalty: A first offense is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 per dwelling unit occupied, imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both. Subsequent offenses are felonies with steeper penalties.
  • Exceptions: The law doesn’t apply to guests or family members of the owner or a tenant.

This statute empowers property owners to pursue legal action against squatters, potentially leading to their removal and facing criminal charges. While they destroy your property and cost you legal fees, house and utility payments. 

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Self-Help Eviction

Michigan offers a unique remedy for property owners: self-help eviction.

Unlike most states, Michigan allows owners to take specific actions to encourage squatters to leave without involving law enforcement.

However, crucial limitations exist:

  • Limited Scope: Self-help measures are only applicable to situations covered by MCL 750.553 (single-family and two-family dwellings).
  • Actions: These measures can involve changing locks, shutting off utilities deemed non-essential for safety and health (like electricity or heat), or removing the squatter’s belongings after they’ve been properly evicted (typically through a legal notice).

Important Cautions:

  • Legality: Any self-help actions must strictly adhere to legal boundaries. Improper actions can lead to lawsuits from the squatter. Consulting a lawyer before taking any steps is highly recommended.
  • Tenant vs. Squatter: These measures cannot be used against tenants with a valid lease agreement. Evicting tenants requires following formal eviction procedures.

MCL Adverse Possession vs. Squatting

It’s important to distinguish squatting from adverse possession, another legal concept related to occupying land. MCL 600.5801 [MCL 600.5801] outlines adverse possession, where someone can potentially gain ownership of a property through extended, uninterrupted, and hostile possession that meets specific criteria. Squatting, however, is generally temporary and lacks the “hostile” element required for adverse possession.

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Taking Action – Since You Can’t Call in the A Team

If you suspect someone is squatting in your property, here are some steps to consider:

  • Contact Law Enforcement: For situations covered by MCL 750.553, involving the police can initiate the process of removing the squatter and potentially pressing charges.
  • Seek Legal Counsel: An attorney can guide you through the legal options available, including navigating self-help measures or pursuing formal eviction procedures.

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: I am squatting in a house in Michigan and was threatened by the owner. What can I do?

In Michigan, squatting is illegal and the owner has the right to take action to get you out. Here’s what you should know:

Your Legal Situation:

  • Squatting is a Crime: Michigan’s MCL 750.553 criminalizes squatting in single-family homes and one or both units in a two-family dwelling [MCL 750.553]. Since you’re squatting, the owner has legal grounds to pursue your removal.
  • Threats vs. Legal Action: While the owner may have threatened you, they can’t physically remove you themselves. However, they can involve the police or initiate legal eviction proceedings.

What You Can Do:

  • Leave Immediately: This is the safest and most advisable option. There’s a high chance you’ll be evicted if the owner pursues legal channels, and you could face criminal charges.
  • Seek Shelter Assistance: Contact local homeless shelters or social service agencies for temporary housing or resources to help you find permanent housing.
  • Legal Aid: Consider seeking legal aid from organizations specializing in tenant rights. They can offer advice on your options and potential defenses (if any) based on the specifics of your situation.

Important Notes:

  • Self-Help Eviction: Michigan allows self-help eviction for some situations, but it’s a complex process with legal risks. It’s best to avoid this and let the legal system handle the eviction.
  • False Claims of Tenancy: Don’t attempt to falsely claim you have a lease agreement. This is a crime and could worsen your situation.

Here are some resources that can help:

  • Michigan Legal Services Helpline: 1-888-773-8255

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

Another Case Dismissed

Another Case Dismissed

December 6, 2022 - Through the diligence and tenacity of trial attorney Michael Komorn and the team at Komorn Law. We are proud to announce - another case dismissed.

read more
News Scrape November 2022

News Scrape November 2022

Search Results Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorneys Featured Attorney Award winning Attorney Michael Komorn owner and Trial Attorney for his firm Komorn Law PLLC is based...

read more
The Right to a Jury Trial

The Right to a Jury Trial

When facing criminal charges you have the right to have a trial by jury. The justice system will offer you the right to a jury trial. It's just a matter if you can...

read more
Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Mar 29, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Crime, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Understanding Adverse Possession in Michigan

Michigan recognizes adverse possession, a legal doctrine allowing someone to acquire ownership of real property they’ve occupied for a specific period, even without a formal title.

The Statute: MCL 600.5801

The relevant statute governing adverse possession is MCL 600.5801 [MCL 600.5801], titled “Limitations of actions – real property.” It establishes time limits for filing legal actions regarding land ownership.

Subsection (4) is crucial, stating a 15-year limitation period “in all other cases under this section.” This implies that to gain title through adverse possession, one must continuously possess the land for fifteen years.

600.5801 Limitation on actions; time periods; defendant claiming title under deed, court-ordered sale, tax deed, or will; other cases.

Sec. 5801.

     No person may bring or maintain any action for the recovery or possession of any lands or make any entry upon any lands unless, after the claim or right to make the entry first accrued to himself or to someone through whom he claims, he commences the action or makes the entry within the periods of time prescribed by this section.
    (1) When the defendant claims title to the land in question by or through some deed made upon the sale of the premises by an executor, administrator, guardian, or testamentary trustee; or by a sheriff or other proper ministerial officer under the order, judgment, process, or decree of a court or legal tribunal of competent jurisdiction within this state, or by a sheriff upon a mortgage foreclosure sale the period of limitation is 5 years.
    (2) When the defendant claims title under some deed made by an officer of this state or of the United States who is authorized to make deeds upon the sale of lands for taxes assessed and levied within this state the period of limitation is 10 years.
    (3) When the defendant claims title through a devise in any will, the period of limitation is 15 years after the probate of the will in this state.
    (4) In all other cases under this section, the period of limitation is 15 years.
Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Elements of Adverse Possession

To successfully claim adverse possession in Michigan, the claimant (squatter) must demonstrate they possessed the property in a way that meets the following criteria:

  • Actual Possession: This implies actively utilizing the land and regarding it as one’s possession. Infrequent or irregular use would not meet the criteria.
  • Visible and Open: The possession should be evident to anyone observing the property. Fences, landscaping, or structures built demonstrate this.
  • Notorious: The possession should be known or readily discoverable by the rightful owner. This doesn’t require the owner’s actual knowledge, but the use should be such that the owner could have discovered it with reasonable diligence.
  • Exclusive: The possession should prevent others, including the rightful owner, from using the land.
  • Continuous and Uninterrupted: Possession must be ongoing for the entire 15-year period. Gaps or breaks in possession could weaken the claim.
  • Hostile: This doesn’t imply animosity towards the true owner. It simply means the possession is adverse to the owner’s rights, suggesting a claim of ownership independent of the owner’s permission.

We’ll Take That From You.

MCL 600.5821 addresses limitations for government entities [MCL 600.5821]. Government entities like municipalities and road commissions are generally not subject to adverse possession claims.

Additionally, the “hostile” element can be tricky. Permission from the true owner, even verbal, can disrupt the claim.

Consulting an attorney is highly recommended to assess the specific facts of a potential adverse possession case.

Potential Issues

Successfully establishing adverse possession allows the claimant to gain legal title to the property.

However, there are potential drawbacks. The process can be lengthy and require significant evidence. Additionally, if the true owner contests the claim, litigation can be costly.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: I have been living in a tent for 15 years in a Michigan State Park. Can I claim that property as my own under the adverse possession laws?

Unfortunately, you cannot claim ownership of the land in the Michigan State Park through adverse possession for a few reasons:

  • Government Immunity: MCL 600.5821 exempts government-owned land from adverse possession claims [MCL 600.5821]. State parks fall under this category, meaning no matter how long you’ve resided there, you can’t acquire ownership through adverse possession.

While you’ve met the time requirement (15 years in Michigan), the other elements likely wouldn’t hold up either.

  • Permission: Living in a state park typically requires permission, even if it’s just following camping regulations. This suggests you wouldn’t be able to establish “hostile” possession, a crucial element.

Here’s what you can do:

  • Contact Park Rangers: Explain your situation to the park rangers. They might be able to offer alternative solutions, like designated camping areas or low-cost housing programs.
  • Seek Legal Advice: An attorney specializing in property law can provide a more nuanced perspective on your situation. There might be other legal avenues to explore, depending on the specifics.

While claiming ownership through adverse possession isn’t possible in this case, there might be other options to consider.

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Disciplining Student’s Speech Violates First Amendment

Disciplining Student’s Speech Violates First Amendment

Mar 28, 2024 | Blog, USA news

You go girl!!!

A public high school was found to have violated the First Amendment when it suspended a student from her cheerleading team for using profane speech off campus.

Mahanoy Area Sch Dist v BL, No 20-255, ___ US ___ (June 23, 2021).

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that Pennsylvania high school officials did not possess the jurisdiction to reprimand a student for her off-campus, profane Snapchat post, which was made out of frustration after not being selected for the varsity cheerleading squad.

The court ruled 8-1 that the social media post did not cause a substantial disruption under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. 

A female student at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania, who did not make the school’s varsity cheerleading team but was instead placed on the junior varsity team, expressed her frustration by posting two images on Snapchat while at a local store during the weekend.

One image included explicit language and gestures alongside general comments about cheerleading and school, although it did not specify the school by name.

The second image only contained the following text: “Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but tha[t] doesn’t matter to anyone else?”

The cheerleading coach and school administrators were made aware of B.L.’s posts and subsequently decided to suspend her from the team for a duration of one year.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Through her parents, Levy sued in federal court, asserting that the disciplinary action violated her First Amendment right to free speech. Additionally, they contended that it was the responsibility of her parents, not school officials, to administer discipline.

A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit both ruled in favor of Levy, stating that the Tinker substantial disruption standard does not apply to off-campus, online student speech.

Alternatively, the 3rd Circuit also determined that, even if Tinker was deemed applicable, the post did not reach the threshold of causing substantial disruption.

The school district wasted tax dollars and appealed the Supreme Court decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer Reasoning that a school’s regulatory interests are diminished when a student partakes in off-campus social media speech, it was identified that three distinct features of social media speech govern such an approach.

  • With regard to off-campus speech by students, school officials rarely stand in loco parentis. “Geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility.”
  • Courts should be skeptical of school officials’ regulatory interest in policing student social media speech, given that such speech could take place anytime during a 24-hour day.
  • Schools have an interest in protecting even unpopular student speech, because “America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy.”

He emphasized the importance of officials maintaining regulatory oversight over social media speech involving cyberbullying, harassment, threats, or breaches of school security devices.

Justice Alito’s concurring opinion advises public schools to exercise thoughtful caution when seeking to regulate off-campus speech.

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act

Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act

Mar 27, 2024 | Blog, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Michigan Supreme Court – These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act. Red Flag Laws.

Effective February 13, 2024

On February 6, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued ADM File No. 2023-24, which adopts amendments to MCR 3.701 and the addition of MCR 3.715, .716, .717, .718, .719, .720, .721, and .722, effective February 13, 2024.

These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised Judicature Act in May of 2023.

  • MCR 3.715 Definitions. Several terms are defined within this rule, including “complaint,” “existing action,” “minor,” “petitioner,” and “respondent.” In addition, MCR 3.715 indicates that the terms “dating relationship,” “possession or control,” “family member,” “guardian,” “health care provider,” “law enforcement agency,” and “law enforcement officer,” mean those terms as defined in MCL 691.1803.
  • MCR 3.716 Commencing an Extreme Risk Protection Action. An extreme risk protection action is an independent action commenced by filing a complaint with the family division of the circuit court. A complaint may be filed regardless of whether the respondent owns or possesses a firearm and must be prepared on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office and submitted with the complaint. An extreme risk protection action may only be commenced by
    • the spouse or former spouse of the respondent;
    • an individual who has a child in common with, has or has had a dating relationship with, or resides or has resided in the same household as the respondent;
    • a family member;
    • a guardian of the respondent;
    • a law enforcement officer; or
    • a health care provider, under certain circumstances.

MCR 3.716 also details requirements for the complaint, a complaint against a minor, and venue.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

  • MCR 3.717 Dismissals. Except as otherwise specified in the rules, an action for an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) may only be dismissed upon motion by the petitioner prior to the issuance of an order.
  • MCR 3.718 Issuing Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Except as otherwise provided in the rule, the court must rule on a request for an ex parte order within one business day of the filing date of the complaint and must expedite and give priority to ruling on a request for an ex parte order. MCR 3.718 also specifies the factual requirements for granting an ex parte order as well as the procedures for immediate emergency ex parte orders, an anticipatory search warrant, and hearings. The court must expedite and give priority to hearings required by the extreme risk protection act and must schedule a hearing for the issuance of an ERPO under certain circumstances detailed in the rule.
  • MCR 3.719 Orders. This rule details the form and scope of an order and stipulates the respondent’s response requirements, along with restrictions on concealed weapons and the process for surrendering firearms. Service, notice, and clerk of the court responsibilities are also covered in MCR 3.719.
  • MCR 3.720 Modification, Termination, or Extension of Order. The petitioner may file a motion to modify or terminate the ERPO and request a hearing after the order is issued. The respondent may file one motion to modify or terminate an ERPO during the first six months that the order is in effect and one motion during the second six months that the order is in effect.
  • MCR 3.721 Contempt Proceedings for Violation of Extreme Risk. In general, an ERPO is enforceable under MCL 691.1810(4)–(5), 691.1815(4), and 691.1819(4). MCR 3.721 outlines the guidelines for motions to show cause, service, search warrants, arraignment, pleas of guilty, scheduling or postponing hearings, prosecution after arrest, and violation hearings.
  • MCR 3.722 Appeals. Appeals must generally comply with subchapter 7.200. Either party has an appeal of right from
    • an order granting, denying, or continuing an ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.718(D); or
    • an order granting or denying an extended ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.720(B).

The respondent has an appeal of right from a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered after a contested hearing.

The respondent has the lawful right to appeal a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered following a contested hearing.

Chief Justice Clement concurred with the proposed adoption of the ERPO court rules, but she wrote separately to address her concerns regarding inconsistent legal terminology used in the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act..

Among other linguistic inconsistencies, she emphasized that the Act “requires an individual to file “a summons and complaint” to initiate an ERPO action” but the nature of ERPO actions is consistent with that of a petition—not a complaint.

The Michigan Supreme Court has developed a range of SCAO forms aligned with the ERPO, showcasing their commitment to effective legal documentation.:

See the Court’s February 7, 2023 memorandum for more info.

 Court Form Information

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4908b5/siteassets/forms/scao-approved/recent-revisions/eoc_erpo.pdf

Related Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

More Posts

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.