This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Quiet Title Action category:
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...
REAL ESTATE 64: The Plaintiff met her burden of proof in her quiet title action to establish a prima facie case of title to the property at issue.
Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to residential property she purchased, allegedly from defendant, in 2015, pursuant to a quitclaim deed. Intervening defendant claimed it acquired superior title to the property in November 2016 and also...
REAL ESTATE 63: HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED TITLE, AND THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW SUPERIOR TITLE, THE COURT AFFIRMED SUMMARY DISPOSITION FOR PLAINTIFF IN THIS QUIET TITLE ACTION UNDER MCL 600.2932(1).
This case arises out of a property dispute between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property back-up against one another, so the back of plaintiff’s property borders the back of defendants’...
REAL ESTATE 61: The trial court did not err in ruling that the disputed boundary was established by acquiescence arising from intent to deed to a marked boundary line.
BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent properties. Defendants’ property is east of plaintiff’s property, and the western boundary of defendants’ property is also the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s property....
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...
REAL ESTATE 49: Plaintiff filed suit to compel defendant to transfer the property under the terms of the lease.
Defendant’s legal position is that the option to buy expired at midnight on April 22, 2017, and the lack of any tender of payment by that time means the option expired and plaintiff forfeited all rights to the property.
Even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the deeds make it clear that neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors ever had an ownership interest in the western 10 feet of Lot 56.
A party may file a third-party claim as of right within 21 days after his or her original answer is due. Otherwise, leave on motion with notice to all parties is required.
The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.
The trial court held that in the absence of a written agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to have the house conveyed to her because an oral agreement to transfer the house was barred by the statute of frauds. The trial court entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s claim for quiet title to the house and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) should be granted if the evidence submitted by the parties fails to establish a genuine issue of a material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.
REAL ESTATE 37: Trial court can set aside a foreclosure sale if there is a strong case of fraud or irregularity.
When the statutory requirements for mortgage foreclosure are met, a trial court generally lacks authority to set aside a foreclosure sale except in a strong case of fraud or irregularity.
REAL ESTATE 36: Plaintiff argued that her claim was not time-barred because it did not accrue until the grandmother’s death.
Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).
Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.
When a married couple holds real property as tenants by the entirety, neither spouse acting by themselves can alienate or encumber their interest in the property. A husband or wife must receive the consent of their spouse before conveying or encumbering an interest in the property.
If a party fails to comply with a court order, upon motion by an opposing party, the court may enter a default against the noncomplying party.
The day after the trial court entered its order, Defendant C quitclaimed his interest in the property to Defendant B, who then sold the property on land contract to new owners.
To prevail on a claim of adverse possession, plaintiffs must show that they possessed the disputed property openly, adversely, exclusively, and continuously for at least 15 years. A party making an adverse possession claim can meet the time requirement by tacking their possessory period to that of their predecessors in interest with whom they are in privity of estate.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in determining that the plaintiffs-property owners' quiet title action against the defendants-neighboring property owners was frivolous.
The parties were engaged in a long-standing dispute over natural drainage of water from defendants' higher elevation property across plaintiffs' lot. Plaintiffs moved their septic field and built a berm near the property line that caused water to...
Giving deference to the trial court's conclusion that one of the surveyors (R) was the more credible witness, the court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred in ruling that R's survey correctly placed the...
Holding that intervening defendant-Sawsan Enterprise received constitutionally adequate notice, the court affirmed the trial court's order quieting title in the real property at issue in plaintiff, who purchased it at auction after a tax...