When it comes to real property, disagreements arise frequently under various situations such as disputed ownership or a defect in title. One way to resolve issues regarding title is a quiet title lawsuit. This blog is meant to serve as a primer to a quiet title action. In Michigan, quiet title is litigated under MCL 600.2932 and MCR 3.411.
MCL 600.2932 allows a plaintiff with an interest in property to 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.” MCL 600.2932(a). A quit title action is equitable in nature and is available to a party in possession of real property who seeks to clear the property’s title as against the world. 1373 Moulin, LLC v. Wolf, 341 Mich. App. 652, 659, 992 N.W.2d 314, 319–20 (2022).
In terms of procedure, quiet title actions are governed by MCR 3.411. The complaint must describe the land in question with reasonable certainty by describing the property in question along with the interest the plaintiff claims in the premises, the interest the defendant claims in the premises, and the facts establishing the superiority of the plaintiff’s claims. MCR 3.411(B).
Now that we understand the relevant rule sections of a quiet title action in Michigan, let’s look at a case to understand how the principles work in action. In McFerren v. B & B Inv. Group, a 2002 case in the Court of Appeals of Michigan, Plaintiff McFerren appealed as a right from judgment dismissing his complaint to quiet title. McFerren v. B & B Inv. Grp., 253 Mich. App. 517, 518, 655 N.W.2d 779, 780 (2002). The property in question was in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Id.
Plaintiff purchased the home in 1986 but never recorded the deed and failed to pay taxes on the property. Id. Defendant proceeded to purchase the property from a tax sale and received a tax deed. Id. “Defendant recorded its quitclaim deed on August 31, 1990. Plaintiff later recorded an affidavit in the record title to the property referring to the 1986 deed conveying the property to him.” Id. Various legal proceedings led to Plaintiff and Defendant eventually filing a quiet title action against each other. Id.
In the trial court, it was discovered that Plaintiff was barred to an action to quiet title under the “clean hands” doctrine. Id. The clean hands doctrine requires courts to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to a claim. The Court stated that [t]he record supports the court’s determination that plaintiff attempted to conceal assets from the federal government and his former wife and committed a fraud on the court in his divorce by failing to record his deed to the property and representing to others that he merely leased the property.
Because of this fraud, defendant did not find anything in the property records except a DEA lien before it purchased the property from the [original sellers]. Therefore, it was plaintiff’s misconduct that caused the cloud on his title.” Id. Because Plaintiffs own conduct led to the clouding of title, it was proper to apply the clean hands doctrine, and the trial court did not err.
This case shows that it can property disputes like quiet title actions can take years to adjudicate. The attorneys at Dalton & Tomich, PLC are experienced land use attorneys and have litigated numerous quiet title actions. If you have an issue regarding title, or any property issue, please reach out to protect your interests.
