One Court of Justice

In Zaher v. Miotke, the Court of Appeals held that an easement granted by a husband across property owned in his name alone was not invalid on the ground that his wife did not join in the conveyance.  While a wife’s dower interest entitles her to a one-third life estate in her husband’s real property after his death, that interest merely creates a cloud on the property’s title and it does not nullify an easement granted by the husband alone. Read more »

In Knight v. Northpoint Bank, the Court of Appeals upheld the application of the equitable doctrine of laches to defeat a challenge to a Bank’s claim to real property finding that the plaintiff, who also claimed title to the subject property, lived adjacent to that property for over eight years, but did not assert her rights during that time.  The Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Bank’s chain of title was facially defective because it flowed from an agent transferring title to herself through a power of attorney.  The Court found that such a transfer is appropriate where it is consistent with the agent’s duties to the principal.  Here, the agent and principal both died during plaintiff’s period of delay, thus prejudicing the Bank’s rights to prove the validity of the transfer.  Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals found that the application of laches was proper.

In Price v. High Pointe Oil Company, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing common law rule that noneconomic damages are not recoverable for negligent destruction of property.  While the general rule in tort cases is that a plaintiff may recover for all injuries resulting directly from a wrongful act, including both economic and noneconomic injuries, a different rule applies in cases involving damage to property, for which a plaintiff may recover only the cost of replacement or repair. Read more »

In People v Johnson-El, the defendant filed an Affidavit of Allodial Title with the Wayne County Register of Deeds, asserting that as a member of the Washitaw Moors he owned certain property.  The Washitaw Moors claim to be citizens of the fictional Nation of Washitaw, and believe that all land in the United States outside of the thirteen colonies and Texas belongs to its members.  Based on his affidavit, the defendant was convicted of forgery, uttering and publishing, and encumbering real property without lawful cause.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.  Despite the defendant’s belief in his claim, the Court held that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant’s Affidavit of Allodial Title was false and the defendant was aware of its falsity. Read more »

Citizens Bank foreclosed on a property and made a successful bid sufficient to satisfy the mortgagor’s outstanding principal and interest.  In Citizens Bank v. Boggs, Citizens Bank then brought suit against guarantors of the mortgagor’s loan obligations to collect unpaid taxes and insurance premiums.  The circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, ruling that the bank’s bid was a “full credit bid” that completely extinguished the mortgagor’s (and thus guarantor’s) obligations.

The Court of Appeals confirmed that Citizen Bank’s bid was a “full credit bid” despite failing to include unpaid taxes or insurance premiums.  The Court held a mortgagee can recover taxes, interest, insurance costs which it pays prior to a foreclosure sale in a deficiency action.  Since Citizens Bank had not paid any of the unpaid taxes before the sale, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court on that point.  However, the Court ruled that the guarantors could be liable for insurance premiums paid by the bank prior to the foreclosure sale.

The petitioners in Drew v. Cass County owned three homes, and they sought a principal residence exemption for one of those homes, located on an island in Dowagiac, Michigan.  The petitioners claimed to live at the Dowagiac home with their six children for six months out of the year, and they submitted driver’s licenses, voter registration cards and tax returns listing the home as their residence.  The Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) denied the exemption, relying on utility bills that indicated very little usage and testimony from an area resident that nobody lived on the island.  In addition, the petitioners owned two other homes, and the children’s school was located less than one minute from one of the other homes.  The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion, noting the limited nature of its review of MTT decisions.  The court found persuasive the fact that the petitioners did not offer any evidence to counter the MTT’s evidence regarding utility usage.  In addition, the petitioners’ driver’s licenses, voter registration cards and tax returns were not conclusive proof of principal residence, but merely factors for the MTT to consider, and the weight to accord such evidence is within the MTT’s discretion.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTT’s decision.

In Pontiac Country Club v. Township of Waterford, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Tax Tribunal did not abandon its obligation to independently value the true value of the properties at issue by adopting the pre-trial assessment of the properties by the Township.  The dispute arose after the Pontiac Country Club disputed the Township’s assessment of the properties’ value.  At the hearing before the Tax Tribunal, both parties submitted expert testimony regarding the value.  The Tax Tribunal rejected both experts’ testimony.  It found that Pontiac Country Club’s expert was not credible and that the Township’s revised valuation improperly considered hypothetical zoning changes.  The Tax Tribunal concluded that the original assessment, which fell between each party’s assessment in the litigation, was correct.  The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Tax Tribunal did not shirk its duty to independently assess true value by adopting an initial property assessment when that assessment was supported by testimony and fell within the extremes proposed by the parties.

The Michigan Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeals in a February 8, 2013 opinion, holding that a medical marijuana dispensary that facilitates patient-to-patient transfers of marijuana is not protected by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) and is therefore subject to injunction as a public nuisance.  See the prior post on the Court of Appeals opinion here.

Read more »

In Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, the Michigan Supreme Court held that, where a mortgagee engages in a voluntary purchase agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), it must comply with MCL 600.3204 and record the assignment of the mortgage before foreclosing by advertisement.  The court further held that failure to do so renders the foreclosure sale voidable, as opposed to void ab initio.   

Read more »

As the adage goes, one person’s trash is another’s treasure. In Bonner v. City of Brighton, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Brighton’s ordinance, BCO § 18-59, which requires demolition of an unsafe building if the cost to make it safe exceeds the building’s value, violates the procedural due-process rights of the building’s owners. The plaintiffs, who own two buildings considered unsafe after remaining unoccupied for roughly thirty years, brought a facial challenge to the ordinance. The court decided that owners should have an opportunity to repair such buildings—even if the municipality considers the cost of such repairs unreasonable.

Read more »