This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is in the business of constructing new homes priced at over $1 million. D's claim against P arose from a contract for the sale of property and the construction of a new home. Pursuant to the contract, P agreed to sell to D a 1.8-acre parcel of property in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and to construct a home for D on the property. D agreed to pay a total of $3,030,000. P was required to commence construction 'within a reasonable time after this Agreement is signed and plans are completed and permit is issued.' The sale of the property closed on February 28, 2002. D agreed to allocate $1,750,000 for the purchase of the property and the balance to the building construction. Disputes developed. and D asserted that the true value of the real property was $1 million rather than the $1.75 million stated in the closing papers and in the deed. D contended that the excess of $750,000 was actually an improper initial construction draw to which P was not entitled. D asserted that the delays in commencing construction were unreasonable. On June 6, 2002, D filed suit alleging fraud and misrepresentation, silent fraud, innocent fraud, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act violations, unjust enrichment, accounting, and constructive trust. P denied D's' claims and counter sued alleging breach of contract, business defamation, business libel, injurious falsehood, tortious interference with business relations, and extortion. P filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Six days later, on June 24, 2002, Dl filed this involuntary petition against P. Ds claim was $800,000 for fraud and breach of contract, and that he was eligible to file the petition under 11 U.S.C. § 303(b), i.e., that his claim was not subject to a bona fide dispute. P filed a motion to dismiss claiming there was a bona fide dispute. P claimed the petition was filed in bad faith and that P was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages along with attorney fees and costs. The Court dismissed D's petition, finding that D 'knew or surely must have known that his claim was the subject of a bona fide dispute, and therefore that he was not qualified to be a petitioning creditor.' The Court retained jurisdiction to resolve P’s requests for compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.