From our offices in Petoskey and Harbor Springs in Michigan, our attorneys serve clients nationwide.

Breach Of Contract Representative Cases

A condominium association refused to pay damages to our client after extensive flooding of their condominium unit.

Our client resided in a beautiful, neo-gothic condominium building located on a prominent river. During a particularly cold time of year, another owner from the building informed an employee that a whooshing noise could be heard coming from the vacant unit above our client. When checking the unit in question, the employee found that a window had come open. The employee was unable to properly lock the window due to broken hardware. He decided to prop it shut. No further action was taken to assess for any potential damage threats.

The room began to warm up which allowed a frozen and cracked pipe to thaw, flooding many condos in the building, including our client’s. The condominium association had not followed its own bylaws and shut off the water valve to the vacant unit. Water cascaded through our client’s ceiling and continued for several hours, wreaking havoc on our client’s property. Molosky & Co. aggressively pursued the condominium association for being negligent and for owing a duty to its members and breaching that duty, which, in turn, allowed for damage to our client’s property. Because of Molosky & Co.‘s persistence, our client received a settlement in the amount of $250,000.

Molosky & Co. secures $150,000 Stipulated Consent Judgment for nearly seven years of unpaid rent, and additional damages stemming from breach of implied contract/promissory estoppel.

Our clients were longtime family acquaintances of the defendants. In late 2007, the defendants approached our clients about re-purchasing the home the defendants just lost through a bank foreclosure. Our clients agreed, relying on the defendants’ promise that the proposed arrangement “wouldn’t cost our clients a thing,” and the defendants’ execution of a residential lease that was supposed to absorb all costs to our clients (mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc.). Defendants/tenants defaulted on their rent obligations and only paid a small fraction of the rent over the next several years, leaving our clients stuck paying the remaining mortgage payments and other expenses.

After years of excuses and promises by the defendants/tenants to repay the unpaid rent and expenses, our clients finally sought our legal counsel in 2014. Within months of initiating litigation, Molosky & Co. prevailed on a motion for partial summary disposition, enabling our clients to obtain all their claimed damages (over $200,000) without the expense, uncertainty, and burden of going to trial.

Thereafter, Molosky & Co. negotiated a Stipulated Consent Judgment in which the defendants stipulated to a judgment in the amount of $150,000 so long as they make scheduled monthly payments; in the event the defendants default on their monthly payments, the judgment automatically balloons to the entire $200,000 in damages our clients originally claimed. This result potentially saves our clients from the additional expense and uncertainty of using garnishments to secure their judgment, while guaranteeing their entire amount of claimed damages if the defendants do not make their timely monthly payments.

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.

Our client entered a lease-to-own agreement for her golf course. However, the tenant failed to 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 two money judgments against defendant totaling over $110,000.

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

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 breach of warranty. We obtained judgments against the various defendants totaling over $100,000.

Molosky & Co. successfully settled a complex business dispute involving a multi-million dollar company.

Molosky & Co. represented a successful businessman who turned a floundering, debt-ridden company into a highly successful and lucrative venture. The defendant business owner, once ready to walk away from the failing company, entered into an agreement with our client to re-build the company together. After several years of hard work, our client transformed the failing company, generating $1.5 million in profits over a three-year period, and garnering a $2.6 million purchase offer from an outside buyer. The defendant business owner then decided to be the sole recipient of the unexpected windfall, reneging on the agreement with our client and attempting to exclude our client from the benefit of his hard work and vision. After prevailing over the defendant business owner’s various motions to dismiss the case, and following extensive discovery, Molosky & Co. obtained a substantial and favorable settlement for our client.

With the assistance of Molosky & Co., a property owner sued a tenant and received payment for unpaid rent expenses.

A property owner sued a tenant for unpaid rent pursuant to the terms of a written lease. Tenant denied signing a lease and that any past due payment was due. Molosky & Co. relentlessly pursued the tenant for documentation to support the non-payment of the agreed upon rent and after the tenant’s deposition, the tenant abruptly agreed to pay all past due rent (over $45,000) and costs.

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

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.

Molosky & Co. successfully settles breach of contract lawsuit filed against our client, for several hundred thousand dollars in damages, for less than $25,000, resolving an emotionally/financially draining dispute that plagued our client for 12+ years.

Our client entered into various business relationships with the plaintiff beginning in the early 2000’s, which culminated in our client allegedly executing a promissory note to plaintiff for $175,000.00. Our client’s alleged failure to comply with the promissory note terms resulted in the plaintiff constantly threatening litigation/collection actions over the last decade. Eventually, the plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit against our client claiming $200,000.00 in alleged damages, including accrued interest on the promissory note. Molosky & Co.‘s aggressive and forward leaning approach appropriately conveyed to the plaintiff that the lawsuit would not be a simple/straightforward collections case. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. successfully resolved our client’s exposure to hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability/legal fees for just under $25,000.00, including a full and final release of all claims between our client and the plaintiff. Molosky & Co. also negotiated a manageable payment plan, which allowed our client to finally move forward from further uncertainty/constant stress about this decade and a half long dispute.

Property owner sues tenant for breach of contract and collects payment in excess of $23,000.

A landlord couple and their future tenants entered into a two-year lease. Before the initial two years lapsed, the tenants discontinued paying rent and eventually abandoned the property. Pursuant to the lease, the landlords sent out a notice of unpaid rent and eviction. Upon gaining access to the property, the landlords discovered extensive damage to it. With the assistance of Molosky & Co., our landlord clients sued their tenants for breach of contract. Our clients were granted Judgment, including interest and attorney fees and costs in excess of $23,000. As the tenants did not provide payment of the Judgment within the allotted time, Molosky & Co. filed the necessary documents to freeze/seize the assets of the tenants. As a result of this, tenants immediately paid in full the Judgment amount of over $23,000.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 hoists as purchased by the Plaintiff and never encountered this type of problem, leading our client to the conclusion that the boat hoist was improperly used/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.

Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering amounts due and owing to our client after our client fully performed under a construction contract, yet did not receive payment.

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 company. 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.

Widow received payment of $2,000 after being exploited by national door-to-door sales company.

For over three years, our client tirelessly cared for her cancer diagnosed husband before he passed. Less than twenty fours after his funeral, our grief-stricken client was approached by two unidentified individuals who proceeded to direct our client into her own home and unpack their product. Realizing she was about to be given a demonstration, our client informed the two individuals that she did not need the product, nor could she afford it after her husband’s passing. Even after repeatedly telling the salespeople she could not afford nor did she want the product, the salespeople continued to pressure our grief-ridden client to purchase their product. After three hours of coercion, our client simply wanted the salespeople out of her house and signed what she thought was an agreement for the individuals to come back at a later date. What she had signed was an installment contract to purchase the demonstrated product. When our client’s son approached the back door, the salespeople hurriedly exited the front door, leaving their product and a copy of a signed installment contract with our client. With the intervention of Molosky & Co., our client kept the product, terminated the installment contract, and collected $2,000 in charges from the sales company.

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

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.

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

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 a 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 the 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.

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

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.

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

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 the company filed 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.

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

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 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.

Molosky & Co. reclaims website domain name for a newly acquired business when the seller of the business failed to transfer ownership to the buyer.

A seller refused to transfer a business website domain name pursuant to an asset purchase agreement. Instead, the seller claimed the sale did not include the domain name and lied about who controlled the website. Without access to the domain name, the purchaser, stuck with thousands of dollars worth of unusable marketing materials, facing months of lost profits, and frustrated at the seller’s tactics, contacted Molosky & Co. to obtain the domain website. Due our team’s advocacy and communication with the seller’s attorneys, the seller willingly transferred the domain name to our client without any litigation.