734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the Disputed Property from Plaintiffs’ 1994 deed was a mistake. The trial court determined that this exclusion was an intentional decision. The trial court determined, however, that there was a mutual mistake regarding the conveyance of Defendants’ Property to Plaintiffs when the improvements to the home were located on the Disputed Property. The trial court determined that defendants were entitled to reformation of the 2005 Deed to conform it to third party defendants’ intent based on an innocent-misrepresentation theory, notwithstanding the fact that reformation of the 2005 Deed conflicted with the 2018 Disputed Property Deed later executed by third party defendants. The trial court therefore entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. The trial court determined that defendants had obtained fee-simple title to the Disputed Property as of July 27, 2005. The trial court also ordered that the 2018 Disputed Property Deed and the improvements deed were null and void. This appeal followed.  

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo the equitable action to quiet title. This Court also reviews de novo the proper interpretation of legal instruments, such as deeds or contracts. Yet, this Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings in a bench trial. “A factual finding is clearly erroneous [when], after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Finally, this Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision to grant the equitable relief of reformation of a contract or deed.

PRIMA FACIE CASE OF TITLE

Plaintiffs argue on appeal that they established a prima facie case of title to the Disputed Property and that defendants failed to establish that they had superior right or title to the Disputed Property.  Quiet title actions are governed by MCL 600.2932, which provides: Any person, whether he is in possession of the land in question or not, who claims any right in, title to, equitable title to, interest in, or right to possession of land, may bring an action in the circuit courts against any other person who claims or might claim any interest inconsistent with the interest claimed by the plaintiff, whether the defendant is in possession of the land or not.  Although the trial court did not expressly address which set of parties established a prima facie case of title to the Disputed Property, the trial court impliedly did so when it determined that defendants had obtained fee-simple title to the Disputed Property as of July 27, 2005, and that all subsequent deeds to the Disputed Property were null and void. Based on the disputed testimony presented at the bench trial, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred in reaching its findings of fact. After hearing testimony from multiple witnesses and visiting the real property, the trial court determined that the 50-foot area of land was intentionally excluded from the Plaintiffs’ 1994 deed, and that there was a mutual mistake regarding the conveyance of Defendants’ Property to Plaintiffs when the improvements to the home were located on the Disputed Property.

MUTUAL MISTAKE

Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erroneously reformed the 2005 Deed because there was no mutual mistake to support the reformation. Regarding reformation based on a mutual mistake, a party seeking reformation must demonstrate that there was a mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the bench trial, the trial court found that Third Party Defendants intended to convey to defendants the entire house and improvements as a part of the 2005 conveyance. Because the house and improvements were partially located on the Disputed Property, the trial court concluded that there was a mistake in the 2005 Deed to the extent that Harold and Donna conveyed to defendants the physical structures without conveying the land on which the house and improvements were located. The trial court’s reformation of the 2005 Deed fulfilled Third Party Defendants’ intent to convey to defendants the entire house and improvements at 2716 Slocum Road. We conclude that the trial court did not err by reforming the 2005 Deed.

ASSISTANCE WITH PROPERTY ISSUES

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

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

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
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405