breach of contract

Representative Result #1

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the court to dismiss a lawsuit against our client, after the plaintiff refused to appear for deposition or produce documents.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a medical doctor that amicably dissolved a partnership with another doctor several years ago. Two identical medical devices purchased from a medical equipment company remained in each doctor’s custody following the dissolution of the partnership. The partnership notified the medical equipment company to cancel the original service agreement on the medical devices. Soon thereafter, our client’s former partner decided to sign a new service agreement. Our client never signed a new agreement, yet the medical equipment company continued to service our client’s machines. Our client attempted to pay that company for the services rendered during service calls, but they refused payment. Once the company realized that our client had not signed a service agreement, they claimed that our client owed approximately $100,000 for the service calls. After filing a Complaint alleging breach of contract, we began an aggressive defense. The plaintiff company refused to produce a company representative for a deposition or produce documents we requested. We filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and got the Complaint dismissed.

Representative Result #2

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the court to dismiss with prejudice a case that accused our client of breaching his construction contract.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a contractor who took on a job to remodel a bathroom. After both parties signed the contract and our client started working on the bathroom, his customers experienced buyer’s remorse and terminated our the contract without compensating him fully. These customers then proceeded to sue our client for damaging their bathroom. We argued that our client upheld his end of the contract and did no damage to the bathroom and the court agreed. Molosky & Co. negotiated a dismissal of the suit and protected our client’s name.

Representative Result #3

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in enforcing our client's right to recover a contractual severance payment from his employer following termination of his employment

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a talented employee who, after years of service, received a compelling offer from his employer's competitor. In order to retain our client, the employer entered an agreement providing our client higher pay and a severance package. Sometime later, the employer sold the company and as part of the transaction, terminated all of its employees, including our client. Nonetheless, the employer failed to pay our client the contractual severance since, in the employer's eyes, our client found a similar position soon after he was terminated, albeit without the protection of a severance agreement Molosky & Co. sued the employer for breach of contract and prevailed in a one-day trial, receiving a judgment for the full amount demanded in our complaint, plus interest. The following day, the employer paid our client in full.

Representative Result #4

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully defended an unsupported claim that our client owed another attorney a sizable referral fee.

Expanded Description:
Our client was an enormously successful trial attorney who represents catastrophically injured individuals. Another attorney allegedly referred a no fault insurance claim to our client, who ultimately settled the matter for a considerable sum, and sued our client for approximately $100,000. Molosky & Co. recognized the opportunistic nature of the claim since the alleged referral fee was unsupported by any agreement and the other attorney had no participation in the lawsuit. We successfully argued that by applying established Michigan law to the facts of the dispute, it was clear that our client did not owe a referral fee because (1) there was not an referral fee agreement, and (2) it is unethical to pay a referral without such an agreement. Confident in our legal preparation, Molosky & Co. rejected a reduced case evaluation award that other attorney accepted in favor of prevailing on the merits at trial. Soon afterwards, during a court ordered facilitation prior to trial, the other attorney dismissed all counts against our client with prejudice.

Representative Result #5

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering a real estate sales commission paid by our client where the broker improperly inflated the commission.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered a listing agreement with a real estate broker to sell our client's property. The agreement contained an incentive that doubled the commission if an associate realtor sold the property, with the expectation that the real estate broker would nonetheless exercise good faith and loyalty to our client. The eventual buyer visited the real estate broker's website after seeing a "For Sale" sign at the property. The website listed the real estate broker as the sole contact for the property. The eventual buyer contacted the real estate broker asking for a tour of the property. However, mindful of the incentive, the real estate broker claimed to be too busy and directed the purchaser to an associate realtor. Molosky & Co. sued the real estate broker for breach of contract for purposefully directing the purchaser to an associate realtor in order to receive a larger commission; over a $12,000 difference. After a bench trial conducted over a three-week period, our client received a verdict for a full reimbursement of the disputed commission. The real estate broker paid $15,000 to our client.

Representative Result #6

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. guided our clients through the aftermath of a shareholder's resignation for inappropriate conduct and negotiated favorable buyout terms for the shares.

Expanded Description:
Our client's business partner was forced to resign after an employee notified the board of sexual misconduct. The partner resigned and attempted to cash in his shares of the company soon after, as per the agreement signed by all shareholders several years before the incident. The shares were in escrow, and their immediate release would significantly decrease their value. The former partner wanted his compensation quickly and sued our client. Molosky & Co. negotiated a settlement where a portion of the shares would be bought back until they broke escrow and all of the shares were freed up.

Representative Result #7

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering amounts due and owing to our client after fully performing under a construction contract yet not receiving payment

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a tile contractor who agreed to stand in for the contractual obligations of another company when that company became unable to perform, with the understanding that our client would submit its invoices to that. Our client completed the tiling job and submitted invoices for its work. The company that our client assisted billed for the work, received payment in full, yet refused to pay the nearly $10,000 due and owing to our client. Molosky & Co. sued the company on behalf of our client for breach of contract. As a result of the trial in February 2010, our client was awarded over $10,000 for tiling installation, interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Representative Result #8

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully defended our client against a litany of consumer related claims regarding a boatlift manufactured by our client.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a boat hoist manufacturer. The eventual Plaintiff in this case, a prominent bank president, purchased one of our client's boat hoists from another company. That same company installed the boat hoist for the Plaintiff without requesting our client's involvement. The Plaintiff used the boat hoist for approximately three years during which time the motor failed repeatedly. Our client manufactured and sold many of the same model boat hoist as purchased by the Plaintiff and never encountered this type of problem, leading our client to the conclusion that the boat hoist was used and/or improperly installed. Nonetheless, our client promptly delivered new parts for the boat hoist motor each time it malfunctioned during (and even after) the warranty period. Afterwards, the Plaintiff sued our client alleging a litany of consumer related claims arising from the malfunctioning boat hoist. Molosky & Co. successfully demonstrated that our client complied with all applicable warranties for the boat hoist, which resulted in a favorable case evaluation decision for our client. The Plaintiff rejected the award in favor of trial. After our client prevailed with the jury finding no cause of action against our client, the court awarded our client attorney fees and costs in excess of $11,000.

Representative Result #9

Capsule Summary:
After successfully obtaining a judgment against our client's contractor for inflated costs, Molosky & Co. represented our client through the year's long process of collecting the judgment from the contractor's estate.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired a general contractor to construct, renovate, and finish a living space above our client's garage. After the contractor exceeded the upper estimate for the project by almost $20,000, our client demanded an accounting for the project, which revealed the contractor's improper inflation of costs. Molosky & Co. sued the contractor to recover our client's money, and obtained a Consent Judgment in the amount of $12,700. However, before the judgment was satisfied, the contractor passed away. The contractor's personal estate was insignificant; however, the contractor was a beneficiary in a trust holding valuable real estate. With the economic downturn, the trust had difficulty liquidating the property and distributing funds to the contractor's estate. Molosky & Co. steadfastly communicated with the trust over the course of many years, finally securing full payment for our client, plus interest.

Representative Result #10

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully sued to recoup over $25,000 in outstanding accounts receivables for our client.

Expanded Description:
Our client makes a full line of molds. Over the course of a year, one of our client's customers submitted purchase orders for products and services totaling over $28,000. Our client fulfilled the purchase order and then delivered the customer its invoices. However, the customer paid only $1,076.07. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our client to recover the unpaid amounts, alleging claims for breach of contract and account stated. After supporting our claims with our client's affidavit, the customer failed to support its response with an affidavit, leading to our motion for summary disposition that the amount due and owing was conclusively established. Soon afterwards, we settled the case when the customer agreed to pay our client $25,000.

Representative Result #11

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully regained possession of our client's golf course and obtained a money judgment against the tenant in the amount of $107,952.55.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered a lease-to-own agreement for her golf course. However, the tenant failed pay rent, insurance premiums, taxes, utilities, general expenses, and suppliers as well as failed to maintain the golf course. The tenant also charged over $9,000 to our client's credit card without authorization. In an interesting and multifaceted lawsuit that played out simultaneously in District Court and Circuit Court, Molosky & Co. successfully terminated the lease, regained possession of the golf course and, through motions for summary disposition, obtained a two money judgments against defendant totaling over $110,000.

Representative Result #12

Capsule Summary:
After a modular home dealer mislead our clients regarding cabinets in their new home, Molosky & Co. successfully sued the dealer and obtained judgments totaling over $100,000

Expanded Description:
Our clients visited a modular home dealer's lot and selected a home with custom cabinets. Specifically, the cabinets were represented to have a light maple finish. Upon delivery, our client discovered numerous problems and defects with the home, including dark oak cabinets. The modular home dealer sent a representative to assess the problem, who agreed that the cabinets were the wrong color and agreed to take action to correct the situation. When the company refused to address the defects as promised, we filed suit on our client's behalf. The company attempted to shield itself from liability to our client's for the misrepresented cabinets by engaging in an elaborate and sophisticated corporate entity shell game. Molosky & Co. fought through the facade proving that the company and its sole shareholder were liable under legal claims for successor liability, breach of contract, and breached breach of warranty. We obtained judgments against the various defendants totaling over $100,000.