CHICAGO WYOMING REAL ESTATE CORP V ROBERT LITT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHICAGO-WYOMING REAL ESTATE
CORPORATION,
UNPUBLISHED
November 30, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
ROBERT LITT, MYLES HOFFERT, and
HOFFERT, LITT, SOLWAY & DAITCH, P.C.,
No. 206376
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-636147 NM
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and White, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I believe there is a question of fact regarding whether Rodney
Shaw, as plaintiff’s president, knew or should have known of the injury (the unpaid taxes on all of the
property initially purchased) before February 6, 1996. I would find that there is a genuine issue of a
material fact concerning the six-month discovery rule and that summary disposition was improperly
granted in favor of defendants.
In 1991, plaintiff-corporation was formed by two doctors, Rodney Shaw, D.O., and Asfandiar
Shukri, M.D., to purchase the site of the former Northwest General Hospital. Defendants assisted in
the purchase and the sale was completed on June 9, 1991, for a price of $50,000. On September 12,
1991, plaintiff donated eighty percent of the site to the Barton-McFarlane Neighborhood Association (a
tax exempt association) for one dollar. Plaintiff used the remaining twenty percent of the site for a
medical clinic. Even though Northwest General Hospital had ceased to exist, the city of Detroit
continued to assess the property on its tax rolls at $1,423,250. This assessment was discovered by
defendants who advised plaintiff that the assessment and resulting taxes should be reduced. According
to plaintiff, defendant Hoffert was to handle the assessment and tax reduction with the city.
It is undisputed that plaintiff never received a tax bill from the city of Detroit. According to Dr.
Shaw’s affidavit, which must be accepted as true for purposes of the motion for summary disposition,
he did not know until February 23, 1996, when attorney Montie Labadie researched the matter
because of AT&T’s decision to not lease the property due to back taxes, that a lot split was necessary
-1
in order to allow for a proper apportionment of the property taxes. Dr. Shaw further averred that he
was unaware that such a lot split should have been recorded with the city (or other notification
appropriately given to the tax authorities) to allow for a proper apportionment of the taxes.
Further, in response to Dr. Shukri’s affidavit, Dr. Shaw averred that although he was aware that
plaintiff owed taxes on plaintiff’s portion of the lot (twenty percent), he was not aware that plaintiff could
or did owe taxes on the entire lot. Consequently, Dr. Shaw’s affidavits create a question of fact as to
whether he knew or should have known of the amount of taxes owed on the entire lot. According to
Dr. Shaw, he did n know of the injury until February 23, 1996, when he was informed by Montie
ot
Labadie of the tax consequences of the failure to record the lot split. Therefore, the legal malpractice
claim, which was filed on August 6, 1996, was timely filed within the six-month discovery period, MCL
600.5838; MSA 27A.5838, when accepting Dr. Shaw’s affidavits as true. Summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10) is therefore inappropriate as a jury will have to determine whether Dr.
Shaw actually knew or should have known of the injury before February 1996.
I would reverse.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
