Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 346193; Unpublished
Judges Ronayne Krause, Meter, and Gleicher; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of the defendant, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, finding that the purchase money mortgage contract the plaintiff, Abdul Malik Ibrahim, entered into with USAA was unambiguous and capped the family-provided attendant-care rate at $10 per hour if Ibrahim’s family lived with Ibrahim and provided Ibrahim’s attendant care.
Ibrahim sustained a traumatic brain injury a motor vehicle collision in 2002 and has required 24-hour attendant care ever since. In 2003, Ibrahim’s insurer, USAA, granted Ibrahim a purchase money mortgage for $300,000 to purchase a new home that Ibrahim, his mother, and the rest of Ibrahim’s family moved into. The purchase money mortgage contract provided that, since USAA was not obligated to provide Ibrahim’s family a home, the family would have to pay $1,440 per month in rent. Since Ibrahim’s family provided his attendant care, the contract provided that rent would be paid “in the form of reduced attendant[-]care rate from $12.00 per hour to $10.00 per hour.” In 2018, Ibrahim challenged the $10 per hour cap, arguing that his mother was entitled to earn $18 per hour, and in response, USAA filed a motion for summary disposition which the trial court granted.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of USAA, concluding that “so long as [Ibrahim’s] family is living with [Ibrahim] and personally providing [Ibrahim’s] attendant care, the Agreement unequivocally caps the family provided attendant-care rate at $10 per hour.” Ibrahim argued on appeal that $10 per hour was insufficient to cover his mother’s current expenses as of 2018, but the Court held that it must give effect to the parties’ intentions at the time they entered into the contract, and that nothing was barring Ibrahim’s mother from seeking other employment to cover her expenses while simply paying the $1,440 in rent every month.
Reading the contract as a whole, it is apparent that the $10 per hour attendant-care rate and the rent owed by plaintiff’s family are fixed for the 20-year amortization period. See Wilkie, 469 Mich at 50 n 11. And, although plaintiff argues now that $10 per hour is not enough to cover his mother’s current expenses, this Court must “give effect to the parties’ intentions at the time they entered into the contract.” Bank of America, 499 Mich at 85. It is worth noting that the Agreement only speaks to family-provided attendant care, and the fixed rate is indisputably attached to rent. Thus, the fixed rate only applies so long as plaintiff’s family is living with plaintiff and providing attendant care. That is, to the extent plaintiff’s mother needs to do so to cover expenses, nothing bars her from seeking other employment, paying rent on the first of every month, and allowing defendant to cover alternative replacement services. In any event, the clear language of the Agreement is unambiguous, and the trial court therefore did not err in concluding that the Agreement capped the attendant-care rate at $10 an hour for the 20-year life of the Agreement.
The Court also rejected Ibrahim’s argument that there was “no consideration to support plaintiff accepting $10 an hour for 20 years.”
In this case, the Agreement evidences that consideration existed on both sides. In consideration of plaintiff’s family living in the home financed by defendant, the parties agreed that the family would pay a fixed rate of $1,440 per month in rent. Instead of plaintiff’s family writing a check each month to defendant, the parties agreed to offset the pay rate of attendant care from $12 an hour to $10 an hour so that defendant would recoup the cost of rent each month. Plaintiff’s family obtained the ability to live in the home financed by defendant, defendant received rent for that ability, and both parties received the benefit of a simplified, uniform financial transaction that covered both the cost of attendant care and rent. Therefore, the Agreement was supported by consideration.
