Mills Siding and Roofing, LLC v. Margie Rosario and Angel Rosario

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals considered whether a roofing contract was a “home solicitation sale” under Michigan’s Home Solicitation Sales Act. The majority held that the buyer’s agreement was not “there given” because it was made weeks after the initial door-to-door solicitation, and therefore reversed the circuit court and reinstated the district court’s orders. Judge Korobkin dissented, concluding that the contract was subject to the Act because the buyer was solicited, presented with the contract, and signed it at home.

Holdings

1. A buyer's agreement is "there given" under MCL 445.111(a) only when the seller's solicitation and the buyer's agreement occur at the same time and at the buyer's residence. Because Margie Rosario signed the agreement at least two weeks after the initial door-knocker solicitation, the transaction was outside the Act's scope.
2. Because the transaction was not a home solicitation sale, the HSSA's three-business-day cancellation-notice requirement did not apply, and the absence of that notice did not render the contract unenforceable under the Act.
3. The circuit court erred by reversing the district court's denial of defendants' motion for involuntary dismissal; the circuit court's order was reversed and the district court's orders were reinstated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the transaction qualified as a home solicitation sale under the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act.
2. Whether the buyer's agreement was "there given" under MCL 445.111(a) when the initial solicitation occurred at the buyer's residence but the agreement was signed later.
3. Whether the circuit court properly reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for involuntary dismissal.

Disposition

reversed