Promissory estoppel; Harmless error; MCR 2.116(G)(5); Breach of a guaranty contract; Statute of frauds; Consideration; Training & Treatment Innovations, Inc. (TTI)

The court held that the trial court erred in failing to consider an affidavit in deciding whether there was a question of fact as to plaintiff’s reliance on defendant-TTI’s “assurances; however, because plaintiff cannot establish a viable claim for promissory estoppel, the error was harmless.” It also concluded the trial court did not rely on a violation of the statute of frauds in granting TTI summary disposition. Finally, any error related to its findings as to the lack of consideration was harmless. “Plaintiff is the owner of residential rental properties. TTI is a nonprofit agency that provides, among other things, housing assistance to its clients.” After receiving correspondence from TTI, plaintiff rented a property to defendant-Walker. It argued on appeal, among other things, that the trial court erred in granting TTI summary disposition of its promissory estoppel claim because it failed to consider the affidavit of E, “an individual ‘affiliated with plaintiff,’” in which he “stated that as part of his responsibilities, he handled the rental properties, dealt with potential renters, and approved them to lease plaintiff’s properties.” E asserted “that Walker was only approved to lease the property because of the assurances provided by TTI and that but for these assurances, he would not have approved the rental of the property by Walker.” The court found that it was clear from the record that the trial “court failed to consider the [E] affidavit because it did not sufficiently review the parties’ briefs and the exhibits attached thereto.” It concluded that considering the existing record, the trial “court’s denial of reconsideration on the grounds stated was an abuse of discretion, exalting form over substance.” It further determined that “the trial court’s actions contravened the requirements of MCR 2.116(G)(5).” But the court held that while “the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider the [E] affidavit when ruling on the cross-motions for summary disposition, any error in this regard was harmless. Because there was no clear and definite promise to be financially responsible for Walker’s actions, plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim must fail.” In addition, “the trial court correctly ruled, as a matter of law, that the” letters from a housing program manager with TTI “were insufficient to constitute a binding guarantee by TTI.” Affirmed.