PARKVIEW SENIOR APARTMENTS INC V SIGNATURE ASSOCIATES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PARKVIEW SENIOR APARTMENTS, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
October 26, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
BRUCE WILSON and GARY H.
CUNNINGHAM,
No. 226003
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-013047-CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion for
summary disposition and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The interpretation of clear contractual language is a question of law for the court to
decide. Gramer v Gramer, 207 Mich App 123, 125; 523 NW2d 861 (1994). The clear language
of ¶ 16(a) of the purchase agreement permitted defendants to terminate the contract and have
their deposit refunded if they were unable to obtain an acceptable mortgage from a financial
institution of their choice. The language of ¶ 16 emphasizes that the determination of whether a
proposed mortgage was acceptable was within defendants’ “sole and absolute discretion.” The
unrebutted evidence before the circuit court showed that defendants sought financing but were
unable to obtain acceptable terms from the lenders they chose. This was all they were obligated
to do under ¶ 16. Summary disposition in favor of defendants was proper under MCR
2.116(C)(10).
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
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.
