GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES INC V I & H INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
April 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
I & H, INC., d/b/a THE HENRY GROUP, d/b/a
GREAT STEAK & FRY COMPANY
RESTAURANT,
No. 222660
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 98-091264-CK
Defendants (Not Participating),
v
NICAR MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Sawyer and F.L. Borchard*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary
disposition and granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff. We affirm.
Defendant guaranteed two leases between its franchisee, I & H, Inc., and plaintiff, the
owner of the properties. The leases expired on December 31, 1996; however, I & H held over in
both locations. At approximately the same time, defendant terminated I & H as a franchisee. I &
H defaulted on both leases, and plaintiff obtained possession through summary proceedings.
Plaintiff tendered possession of the properties to defendant, as required by the guaranties.
Plaintiff filed suit against both I & H and defendant, seeking payment of past due rent and
other charges. Both plaintiff and defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10). Plaintiff asserted that because the terms of the leases and the guaranties were
unequivocal once possession of the premises was tendered, no issues of fact existed, and it was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant contended that if plaintiff continued I & H as
a tenant after the leases expired, it did so under new leases of which the guaranties were not a
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
part. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendant’s motion, finding that the
language of the guaranties clearly indicated that those guaranties remained in effect
notwithstanding extension of the leases, and that defendant failed to fulfill its obligations under
the guaranties.
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition
while granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s
decision. We note that aside from authority reciting the standard of review for a decision on a
motion for summary disposition, defendant cites no authority whatsoever in its brief. A
statement of position without citation to supporting authority is insufficient to bring an issue
before this Court. Kuzinski v Boretti, 182 Mich App 177, 180; 451 NW2d 859 (1989).
Substantively, we conclude that the trial court reached the correct decision. The leases
guaranteed by defendant clearly contemplated that tenancy could be held over, and provided that
under such circumstances, the same terms would apply to the continued occupancy. The
guaranties provided that their terms would continue to apply in the event the leases were
extended, and that defendant waived advance notice of any such extension. I & H, the tenant in
both properties as of December 31, 1996, continued occupancy after the leases expired. The
guaranties anticipated the possibility of a holdover tenancy. Under the circumstances,
defendant’s obligations as a guarantor were not discharged after December 31, 1996. See In re
Bluestone Estate, 121 Mich App 659, 667-668; 329 NW2d 446 (1982). The trial court correctly
denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition in favor of
plaintiff.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Fred L. Borchard
-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.
