equitable subrogation doctrine in Michigan

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2023The schools sought summary disposition, arguing among other things that the township was not the real party in interest “because it had paid no money to the Macks and therefore had no basis to pursue an equitable subrogation claim[.]” Id. at 409 .

2022The schools sought summary disposition, arguing among other things that the township was not the real party in interest “because it had paid no money to the Macks and therefore had no basis to pursue an equitable subrogation claim[.]” Id. at 409 .

2022ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274, 277-279 ; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2022ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274, 277-279 ; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2022ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274, 277-279 ; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2020ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274 , 277- 279; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2022ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274, 277-279 ; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2020ACIA relies on Titan, 270 Mich App at 343-344 ; Amerisure, 222 Mich App at 102-103 ; and Michigan Mut Ins Co v Home Mut Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274 , 277- 279; 310 NW2d 362 (1981).

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021In response, Esurance argued that the lack of statutory authority for its claim was not dispositive given that Edwards could have sought recovery from defendants because he had timely applied for benefits from defendants and had no applicable no-fault policy; moreover, because Esurance had paid Edwards’s medical bills, it could pursue, standing in Edwards’s shoes, a claim against defendants for reimbursement under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. 7 The circuit court, relying on the statutory canon of interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 8 ruled that equitable subrogation

2021In response, Esurance argued that the lack of statutory authority for its claim was not dispositive given that Edwards could have sought recovery from defendants because he had timely applied for benefits from defendants and had no applicable no-fault policy; moreover, because Esurance had paid Edwards’s medical bills, it could pursue, standing in Edwards’s shoes, a claim against defendants for reimbursement under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. 7 The circuit court, relying on the statutory canon of interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 8 ruled that equitable subrogation

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2021MCL 500.3142 50 specifies that PIP benefits “are payable as loss accrues” and “are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and 46 Allstate Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co of America, 118 Mich App 594, 603-604 ; 325 NW2d 505 (1982), citing Farmers Ins Group v Progressive Cas Ins Co, 84 Mich App 474, 484 ; 269 NW2d 647 (1978). 47 Maryland Cas Co, 199 Mich App at 564-565 . 48 Auto-Owners Ins Co, 468 Mich at 60 ; see also Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 440 Mich at 132 - 133. 49 MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148 are part of the no-fault act, and the third, MCL 600.6013,

2007Bank, this Court stated, in relevant part: "[T]he doctrine of equitable subrogation does not apply to permit a new mortgage, granted as part of a generic refinancing transaction, to take the priority of the original mortgage, which is being paid off, thereby giving the new mortgage priority over intervening liens." Ameriquest, supra at 665, 726 N.W.2d 424 .

2007Bank, it would affirm the trial court's ruling and adopt the position of the Restatement of Property (Mortgages), 3d (the Restatement), which would permit the application of the doctrine of equitable subrogation in "circumstances of a refinanced mortgage." Ameriquest, supra at 661-662, 726 N.W.2d 424 .

2007In Stroh v. O'Hearn, 176 Mich. 164, 177 , 142 N.W. 865 (1913), the Supreme Court stated that application of equitable subrogation "is proper in all cases . . . where injustice would follow its denial. . . ." Of course, this analysis is now somewhat limited by our interpretation of MCL 565.25, and no longer can one rely on simple equitable considerations alone to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation; rather, there must be a showing of fraud, mutual mistake, or some other "unusual circumstances." In the context of recorded documents under MCL 565.25, we have almost entirely closed the do

2007In Stroh v. O'Hearn, 176 Mich. 164, 177 , 142 N.W. 865 (1913), the Supreme Court stated that application of equitable subrogation "is proper in all cases . . . where injustice would follow its denial. . . ." Of course, this analysis is now somewhat limited by our interpretation of MCL 565.25, and no longer can one rely on simple equitable considerations alone to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation; rather, there must be a showing of fraud, mutual mistake, or some other "unusual circumstances." In the context of recorded documents under MCL 565.25, we have almost entirely closed the do

1993In Commercial Union Ins Co v Medical Protective Co, 426 Mich 109, 117 ; 393 NW2d 479 (1986), the Supreme Court, citing Smith v Sprague, 244 Mich 577, 579-580 ; 222 NW 207 (1928), stated: Equitable subrogation is a legal fiction through which a person who pays a debt for which another is primarily responsible is substituted or subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the other.

1993In Commercial Union Ins Co v Medical Protective Co, 426 Mich 109, 117 ; 393 NW2d 479 (1986), the Supreme Court, citing Smith v Sprague, 244 Mich 577, 579-580 ; 222 NW 207 (1928), stated: Equitable subrogation is a legal fiction through which a person who pays a debt for which another is primarily responsible is substituted or subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the other.

1993In Commercial Union Ins Co v Medical Protective Co, 426 Mich 109, 117 ; 393 NW2d 479 (1986), the Supreme Court, citing Smith v Sprague, 244 Mich 577, 579-580 ; 222 NW 207 (1928), stated: Equitable subrogation is a legal fiction through which a person who pays a debt for which another is primarily responsible is substituted or subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the other.

1993In Commercial Union Ins Co v Medical Protective Co, 426 Mich 109, 117 ; 393 NW2d 479 (1986), the Supreme Court, citing Smith v Sprague, 244 Mich 577, 579-580 ; 222 NW 207 (1928), stated: Equitable subrogation is a legal fiction through which a person who pays a debt for which another is primarily responsible is substituted or subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the other.

2025Id. at 616 .

2025We also review de novo the question of mortgage priority, Graves v American Acceptance Mtg Corp, 469 Mich 608, 613 ; 677 NW2d 829 (2004), and the applicability of the equitable subrogation doctrine, Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v MACP, 507 Mich 498 , 509; 968 NW2d 482 (2021).

2025We also review de novo the question of mortgage priority, Graves v American Acceptance Mtg Corp, 469 Mich 608, 613 ; 677 NW2d 829 (2004), and the applicability of the equitable subrogation doctrine, Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v MACP, 507 Mich 498 , 509; 968 NW2d 482 (2021).

2016Ameriquest Mtg Co v Alton, 273 Mich App 84, 93 ; 731 NW2d 99 (2006).11 In Ameriquest, this Court held that “[b]ecause MCL 565.25(4) plainly provides for priority designation based on date of recordation,” a party must allege and show fraud, mutual mistake, or some other unusual circumstance in order to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

2016Id. at 99-100 .

2016Ameriquest Mtg Co v Alton, 273 Mich App 84, 93 ; 731 NW2d 99 (2006).11 In Ameriquest, this Court held that “[b]ecause MCL 565.25(4) plainly provides for priority designation based on date of recordation,” a party must allege and show fraud, mutual mistake, or some other unusual circumstance in order to invoke the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

2016This case primarily concerns a purported discharge of mortgage and the doctrine of equitable subrogation, which “is available to place a new mortgage in the same priority as a discharged mortgage if the new mortgagee was the original mortgagee and the holders of any junior liens are not prejudiced as a consequence.” CitiMortgage, Inc v Mtg Electronic Registration Sys, Inc, 295 Mich App 72, 81 ; 813 NW2d 332 (2011).

2016This case primarily concerns a purported discharge of mortgage and the doctrine of equitable subrogation, which “is available to place a new mortgage in the same priority as a discharged mortgage if the new mortgagee was the original mortgagee and the holders of any junior liens are not prejudiced as a consequence.” CitiMortgage, Inc v Mtg Electronic Registration Sys, Inc, 295 Mich App 72, 81 ; 813 NW2d 332 (2011).

2016“A party's status as a bona fide purchaser for value is relevant only when there has been a previously unrecorded conveyance.” Trademark Props of Mich, LLC v Fed Nat’l Mtg Ass’n, 308 Mich App 132 , 142 n 4; 863 NW2d 344 (2014) (emphasis added), citing MCL 565.29.23 The bona-fide-purchaser argument posed by SBC does not rely on a previously unrecorded conveyance that allegedly constituted a defect of which it had no notice.

2016“A party's status as a bona fide purchaser for value is relevant only when there has been a previously unrecorded conveyance.” Trademark Props of Mich, LLC v Fed Nat’l Mtg Ass’n, 308 Mich App 132 , 142 n 4; 863 NW2d 344 (2014) (emphasis added), citing MCL 565.29.23 The bona-fide-purchaser argument posed by SBC does not rely on a previously unrecorded conveyance that allegedly constituted a defect of which it had no notice.

2006Although the Court acknowledged that the doctrine of equitable subrogation was applied to a claim involving a refinanced mortgage in Walker , the Court nevertheless found an irreconcilable conflict between Walker and Lentz v Stoflet, 280 Mich 446 ; 273 NW 763 (1937), decided nine years later.

2006Although the Court acknowledged that the doctrine of equitable subrogation was applied to a claim involving a refinanced mortgage in Walker , the Court nevertheless found an irreconcilable conflict between Walker and Lentz v Stoflet, 280 Mich 446 ; 273 NW 763 (1937), decided nine years later.

2006We reverse, but only because we conclude that Washington Mut Bank, FA v Shore-Bank Corp, 267 Mich App 111 ; 703 NW2d 486 (2005), compels reversal on the ground that Ameriquest was a “volunteer” payor and, therefore, was not entitled to equitable subrogation.

2006We reverse, but only because we conclude that Washington Mut Bank, FA v Shore-Bank Corp, 267 Mich App 111 ; 703 NW2d 486 (2005), compels reversal on the ground that Ameriquest was a “volunteer” payor and, therefore, was not entitled to equitable subrogation.

2005Furthermore, this Court has held that a subrogee is entitled to “costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” Neal v Neal, 219 Mich App 490, 495 ; 557 NW2d 133 (1996).

2005Furthermore, this Court has held that a subrogee is entitled to “costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” Neal v Neal, 219 Mich App 490, 495 ; 557 NW2d 133 (1996).

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

1996Because a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties, Scholz v Montgomery Ward & Co, Inc, 437 Mich 83, 93 ; 468 NW2d 845 (1991); Wallace v Recorder’s Court, 207 Mich App 443, 447 ; 525 NW2d 481 (1994); Cascade Electric Co v Rice, 70 Mich App 420, 426 ; 245 NW2d 774 (1976), we consider this issue in the alternative and conclude that Farm Bureau would be entitled to collect the costs and mediation sanctions under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.