Spring Harbor Club Condominium Association v. Wright ( 2016 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
March 4, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
152092 & (51) Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
SPRING HARBOR CLUB CONDOMINIUM Joan L. Larsen,
ASSOCIATION, DON L. KESKEY, the ESTATE Justices
OF PETER DONLIN, and BRUCE TRAVERSE
d/b/a KESTRADON ENTERPRISES,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants,
v SC: 152092
COA: 321507
Charlevoix CC: 13-061924-CK
GREG WRIGHT d/b/a WRIGHT ENTERPRISE,
INC., a/k/a BUILT WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION,
a/k/a BUILT WRIGHT CONTRACTORS, a/k/a
BUILT WRIGHT CORP,
Defendants-Appellants/
Cross-Appellees,
and
H. JACK BEGROW PC, HAROLD JACK
BEGROW, and UNKNOWN
SUBCONTRACTORS,
Defendants-Appellees/
Cross-Appellees.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2015
judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-
appellants are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from this Court’s order denying leave to appeal. I would
instead reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it concluded that the
trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Greg Wright and
2
the various entities associated with him (the Wright defendants) on plaintiffs’ express
warranty claims.
“[C]ontracts are to be construed in their entirety.” Perry v Sied, 461 Mich 680,
689 (2000). Article 12 of the contract between plaintiffs and the Wright defendants
expressly warrants that “all Work will be of good quality, free from faults and defects and
in conformance with the Contract Documents.” It includes no time limitation. Article
21, however, provides that “[t]he Contractor shall correct any Work that fails to conform
to the requirements of the Contract Documents . . . within a period of eighteen (18)
months from the date of the Final Certificate of Occupancy . . . .” In my judgment,
contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, Articles 12 and 21 are not independent
provisions, but rather refer to the same subject matter — “Work” in conformance with
the “Contract Documents” — and consequently must be read together to interpret the
contract in its entirety. And when read together, these articles provide that the
“Contractor,” i.e., the Wright defendants, expressly warrants that all “Work” will be in
conformance with the “Contract Documents” and that all “Work” that is not in
conformance with the “Contract Documents” will be corrected within 18 months
following the “date of the Final Certificate of Occupancy.” That is, Article 21 imposes
an 18-month limitation on the express warranty set forth in Article 12. Because the 18-
month limitation has long since expired, I would conclude that plaintiffs cannot proceed
with their express-warranty claims against the Wright defendants.
Because I believe the Court of Appeals clearly erred by concluding that the
express warranty set forth in Article 12 was not subject to the 18-month limitation set
forth in Article 21, I respectfully dissent.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
March 4, 2016
t0301
Clerk