to an LLC owned by the landlords. The panel found that the right of first refusal was triggered only on two conditions. First, the landlord must “desire to sell” the property and, second, the landlord must have received a “bona fide written offer” to purchase the property. Id. at 406. The panel agreed with the district court that the landlord had no “desire to sell” the property under Michigan law because the transfer was not supported by valuable consideration. Id. at 407. The panel concluded that it was “beyond dispute that the proposed transfer of interest from the Evans to Talrae [ (the LLC) ] was not the result of arms’ length dealing and would not result in any real change in control of the property. Under these circumstances, we agree that the right of firs , 1141-42 (D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>); Kroehnke v. Zimmerman, 171 Colo. 365, 467
holding gratuitous transfer of real property to hospital did not trigger right of first refusal holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered holding transfer restriction granted right of first refusal in event of voluntary or involuntary transfer of stock holding that transfer of property from an individual to a corporation wholly owned by the same individual was not a sale triggering a right of first refusal