quiet title claim in Michigan

2025Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 719 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007), citing MCL 600.5801(4).

2025Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 719 ; 742 NW2d 399 (2007), citing MCL 600.5801(4).

2023However, plaintiffs present no support for the notion that an option to purchase, which was never fully executed, gives them an interest in the property, other than the broad assertion that MCL 600.2932 provides a sufficient basis for the quiet title claim. “[I]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to . . . unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted)

2023However, plaintiffs present no support for the notion that an option to purchase, which was never fully executed, gives them an interest in the property, other than the broad assertion that MCL 600.2932 provides a sufficient basis for the quiet title claim. “[I]t is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to . . . unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position.” Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243 ; 577 NW2d 100 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted)

2026A trespass involves “an invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of his land[.]” Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644, 653-654 ; 754 NW2d 899 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026A trespass involves “an invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of his land[.]” Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644, 653-654 ; 754 NW2d 899 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025We agree with defendants that the independently-labeled “quiet title” claim misses the mark in the context of the instant case. “[T]he purpose of an action to quiet title is to determine the existing title to property by removing any cloud therefrom.” Ingle v Musgrave, 159 Mich App 356, 365 ; 406 NW2d 492 (1987).

2025We agree with defendants that the independently-labeled “quiet title” claim misses the mark in the context of the instant case. “[T]he purpose of an action to quiet title is to determine the existing title to property by removing any cloud therefrom.” Ingle v Musgrave, 159 Mich App 356, 365 ; 406 NW2d 492 (1987).

2025When applying a de novo standard of review, Estes, 481 Mich at 578-579 , we conclude that this issue does not withstand scrutiny.

2024There are no factual allegations whatsoever, in either complaint, regarding conduct by defendant that occurred after 2013 or related to maintenance of the bridge. “[C]onclusory statements that are unsupported by allegations of fact on which they may be based will not suffice to state a cause of action.” State ex rel Gurganus, 496 Mich at 63 . -5- trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff has failed to state a quiet-title claim, and that dismissal was correspondingly warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(8).

2022Similarly, laches is generally an affirmative defense that a plaintiff is “subject to” when they sleep on their rights, see Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 114-115 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (explaining the doctrine of laches), suggesting that MCL 600.5821(2)(b) applies when a governmental entity is asserting a quiet title claim, not when it is defending one.

2022Similarly, laches is generally an affirmative defense that a plaintiff is “subject to” when they sleep on their rights, see Knight v Northpointe Bank, 300 Mich App 109, 114-115 ; 832 NW2d 439 (2013) (explaining the doctrine of laches), suggesting that MCL 600.5821(2)(b) applies when a governmental entity is asserting a quiet title claim, not when it is defending one.

2019Nonetheless, because “an order granting summary disposition under the wrong subrule may be reviewed under the correct rule,” see Limbach v Oakland Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs, 226 Mich App 389 , 395 n 3; 573 NW2d 336 (1997), we will review whether dismissal of the quiet title claim would have been proper pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(5).

2019Nonetheless, because “an order granting summary disposition under the wrong subrule may be reviewed under the correct rule,” see Limbach v Oakland Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs, 226 Mich App 389 , 395 n 3; 573 NW2d 336 (1997), we will review whether dismissal of the quiet title claim would have been proper pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(5).