Court of Appeals of Michigan. Submitted June 4, , at Lansing. Decided Aug. Ligon Law Office , by M. Jean Ligon , Brighton and Paul S. Vaidya , for Dany Jo Peabody. Girard and Jennifer M. Tichelaar , Lansing , for Marta DiMeglio. Plaintiff , Dany Jo Peabody , appeals as of right the probate court 's order granting summary disposition for defendant , Marta DiMeglio , in her individual and representative capacities, pursuant to MCR 2. Defendant cross-appeals the probate court 's order denying her motion for attorney fees.
We reverse the probate court 's grant of summary disposition and remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff and Paul DiMeglio the decedent were married in and divorced in As part of the divorce, plaintiff and the decedent entered into a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated, but not merged, into a Virginia divorce judgment by express language to that effect on December 15, The portion of the agreement relevant to this appeal deals with a piece of real property located in Colorado the Colorado property.
Colorado Mortgage Sometime before , the decedent missed several mortgage payments on the Colorado property. On November 27, , plaintiff executed a quitclaim deed in favor of the decedent conveying her entire interest in the Colorado property. This was done to remove her from the mortgage to avoid financial responsibility for the property and to allow the decedent to refinance. Sometime around , the decedent further encumbered the property with mortgage debt. On November 12, , the decedent conveyed his entire interest in the Colorado property to his new wife, defendant Marta DiMeglio , by quitclaim deed.
He executed a second quitclaim deed in favor of Marta on August 30, The decedent died on November 12, Plaintiff filed a claim against his estate that Marta, as personal representative, denied. Plaintiff then filed her eight-count complaint in the probate court against the decedent's estate and Marta as personal representative of the estate and individually. The complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, statutory conversion, concert of action, fraud, enforcement of the divorce judgment, and unjust enrichment.
Marta moved for summary disposition under MCR 2. The probate court granted summary disposition under MCR 2. The probate court further granted summary disposition under MCR 2. On appeal, plaintiff only contests the probate court 's finding that the statute of limitations for contract claims barred all of plaintiff 's claims, including, in particular, the claims for enforcement of the divorce judgment and unjust enrichment provided for in Counts VII and VIII of her complaint, respectively.
