Appeal denied in ?06 Muy Grande transaction
by Peter Jakey, Managing Editor
The Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) court upheld an earlier ruling that the sale of Muy Grande Ranch and Resort in Case Township to Perry and Paulette Heleski did not violate a breach of contract, among several claims made by the plaintiffs.
The COA issued its unpublished opinion in Webber v. Muy Grande Ranch Tuesday, affirming the trial court? s grant of summary disposition on multiple claims of fraud and breach of contract in connection with the real estate transaction.
THE CASE arises out of philanthropists Wayne and Joan Webber?s attempt to purchase the deer ranch south of Millersburg.
In September of 2006, the Webbers agreed to purchase the 1,500-acre facility from Glen and Jeanne Catt for $4.75 million. The agreement required an initial deposit of $150,000, which plaintiffs tendered on Sept. 1, 2006. Another $150,000 deposit was required after the first 15 days, if the deal was to move forward.
Part of the purchase agreement with the Webbers and Catts provided a right to terminate the agreement within the first 15 days for a full refund. On Sept. 15, 2006, the plaintiffs requested a return of their initial deposit, citing, ?their dissatisfaction with the sellers? representations of deer inventory and health report as well as the sellers? maintenance of the ranch,? however, the plaintiffs indicated that the sellers should contact them ?if they desire to proceed.?
BEFORE THE Webbers asked for their deposit back, a ?secondary purchase? agreement? already had been entered on Sept. 13, 2006 with the Heleskis, for the Catts to sell the property for $5,250,000 in the event the original agreement with the plaintiffs fell through. On Oct. 12, 2006, the Heleskis a
?To quote a popular phrase, plaintiffs want to have their cake and eat it too,? stated court records. Had plaintiffs intended to continue with the transaction as they now argue, they could have made?the second deposit as required by the agreement, and then still have terminated??
The COA? documents continued, stating the Webbers terminated the original purchase agreement and ?have no further recourse.? Other claims also were dismissed, including a charge that there was not enough time for discovery at the time of the trial court?s original order of Jan. 19, 2007.
The Court indicated that the plaintiffs should have indicated discovery had not been completed and supported the claim with ?some independent evidence.? The Heleski?s purchased the resort and operate it today.