RIVER BEND ESTATES INC V CASZ INC

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RIVER BEND ESTATES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, UNPUBLISHED January 17, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 183992 Grand Traverse County LC No. 92-010677-CK CASZ, INC., a Michigan Corporation, CASIMER A. ZAREMBA, as President and in his individual capacity, WALTER ZAREMBA and RONALD WILLMES, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. Before: Doctoroff, C.J., and Wahls and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this breach of contract case, plaintiff River Bend Estates, Inc., appeals as of right a judgment entered on a jury verdict of no cause of action. We affirm. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion in limine. The motion contended that where defendants filed an affidavit of interest with the county register of deeds concerning the subject real property, no question of fact remained for the jury’s determination that defendants waived their right to withdraw their offer to purchase the property. The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion before the parties’ opening statements on the ground that factual development was necessary concerning what the parties had agreed to or intended with respect to the affidavit. During trial, some evidence was presented that plaintiff’s president, Eugene Kraus, knew about and acquiesed in the filing of the affidavit. In denying plaintiff’s renewal of the motion after the parties had rested their cases, the trial court concluded that in light of this evidence it could not take the issue of waiver from the jury. Where the existence of a waiver is generally a jury question, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion. Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 424; 245 NW2d 774 (1976). -1­ Plaintiff also argues that the affidavit constituted a constructive option contract and that the terms of the purchase agreement prevented an oral modification of the agreement. However, we decline to address these issues where plaintiff failed to raise them before the trial court. Adam v Sylvan Glynn Golf Course, 197 Mich App 95, 98; 494 NW2d 791 (1992). Finally, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to give plaintiff’s nonstandard jury instruction 4A. Bordeaux v The Celotex Corp, 203 Mich App 158, 169; 511 NW2d 899 (1993). Affirmed. /s/ Myron H. Wahls /s/ Michael R. Smolenski I concur in result only. /s/ Martin M. Doctoroff -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.