Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
128060 & (83)(84) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
JOHN G. MULARONI, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 128060
COA: 251282
Wayne CC: 01-124007-CK
GERMANO MULARONI,
GERMANO MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
FRENCHMAN’S LANDING, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
and
GERMANO MULARONI FAMILY TRUST,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellee/
Cross-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2005
judgment of the Court of Appeals and the applications for leave to appeal as cross-
appellants are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The agreement
provides, and defendants conceded below and in this Court, that plaintiff’s “initial
interest” in the “property and/or the limited liability company” that the parties
contemplated forming was 50 percent of the difference between the purchase price
(together with the costs of obtaining rezoning, with interest at 8 percent) and the value of
the property as rezoned. We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to
determine (1) upon retrial, 50 percent of the net increase in the vacant property’s value as
a result of the rezoning, in accordance with the formula in paragraph 3 of the agreement
of August 30, 1996; and (2) whether the trust entity that is a member of the limited
liability corporation that holds title to the subject property is the trust entity named as a
defendant in this action and, if not, to correct any misnomer.
2
If plaintiff accepts remittitur in the amount of $841,000, the amount that
defendants concede would be due to plaintiff if he is entitled to recover 50 percent of the
property’s net increase in value after rezoning, the circuit court may deny retrial on that
issue.
In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal and the applications for
leave to appeal as cross-appellants are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the
remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.
April 5, 2006 _________________________________________
p0329 Clerk