Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 56: A forged deed is not merely voidable, but void.

In June 2012, plaintiff purchased real property in Michigan. Over a year later plaintiff was arrested on federal charges related to drug trafficking. Since his arrest, plaintiff has remained incarcerated.

During his first week in jail, he was visited by the mother of his children and his adult son.  The mother testified that plaintiff told her that the property was supposed to be for plaintiff and his children and that he wanted the children to grow up there. The mother also testified that plaintiff wanted the property out of his name because he was concerned that the feds would seize it the way that they had taken his vehicle and other properties.

Quit Claim Deed

Less than a week after plaintiff was arrested on federal charges, a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the property from plaintiff to the mother’s brother was signed and notarized at a UPS store.

The notary did not have any specific recollection of the transaction, but she testified that she has never notarized a document that she did not physically observe the person listed on the identification sign. Because plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the deed was signed and notarized, it was impossible for him to have been the individual who signed the deed purporting to transfer his property to the mother’s brother.

Sale of Property

In January 2016, the mother’s brother quit claimed the property to the mother. And, in October 2016, the mother contacted a realtor to sell the property.

In November 2016, defendant saw the property listing. The defendant testified that before making an offer, he was aware that there was an issue with the title. Both realtors and defendant anticipated that any problems with the title would be resolved by closing. The title commitment was completed by November 14, 2016. Both realtors testified that they received the title insurance commitment before closing and that the commitment did not reveal any issues with the title that needed to be resolved.

The property was inspected on December 2, 2016. The closing occurred on December 8, 2016. Three days earlier, on December 5, 2016, plaintiff’s friend recorded an affidavit with the Oakland County Register of Deeds asserting that plaintiff was in federal prison on the date the disputed deed was allegedly signed and contending that the deed was forged. Plaintiff also told the real estate agent not to sell the house because the house belonged to plaintiff, not the mother.

Defendant began residing in the Southfield house in early 2017. Subsequently, on October 2, 2017, plaintiff filed suit to quiet title to the property, claiming a superior interest above the mother’s brother, the mother, and defendant.

Quiet Title in Defendant’s Favor

Following the bench trial, the trial court reached its decision. It found that defendant was a bona fide purchaser who acted in good faith and that plaintiff had conceded as much. Ultimately, the trial court held that although plaintiff had not executed the disputed deed, he had orchestrated it because he had wanted the transaction to occur and, therefore, authorized the execution of the disputed deed. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claim and entered a judgment quieting title in defendant’s favor.

The trial court found that plaintiff had orchestrated the transfer of the property to the mother’s brother with the aim of hiding the asset from the federal government. The court’s finding is supported by the timing of the transfer, which occurred within one week of plaintiff’s incarceration on the federal charges. That same week, plaintiff met with the mother and his adult son. The adult son’s name was the name on the identification used by the person who signed plaintiff’s name to the quitclaim deed.

Assistance with Quit Claim Deeds

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking resolution to a property litigation matter?

If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate issue, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000