In Myra C. Torovich v. Joseph Oddo, unpublished per curium opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 5, 2019 (Docket No. 342967),the Michigan Court of Appeals held that all joint owners of property must sign a contract that conveys an interest in the property, otherwise, the contract will be rendered void.
After purchasing real estate in 1979, plaintiff got married, and conveyed the property to herself and her husband via quitclaim deed in 1985. In 1992, plaintiff’s husband unilaterally granted a mortgage in favor of defendant, where the husband was described as “a single man,” and plaintiff’s name was never listed in the recorded document. After plaintiff’s husband died, plaintiff sought to quiet title and to extinguish defendant’s mortgage.
After plaintiff filed her claim, defendant filed a counterclaim, in which he requested that the mortgage be declared valid and that a monetary judgment be entered against plaintiff for the unpaid balance of the mortgage plus interest. The plaintiff then moved for summary disposition, arguing that she and her husband were tenants by the entirety and that the mortgage was invalid because she did not sign it. While defendant argued that the mortgage was in fact valid because plaintiff subsequently ratified it, the trial court granted plaintiff summary disposition and quieted title in her favor.
The Court of Appeals held that in Michigan, a conveyance of real property to a husband and wife presumably creates a tenancy by the entirety. When property is held as tenants by the entirety, neither spouse can alienate their interest in the property without the consent of the other. In this case, the Court held that plaintiff’s husband could not mortgage his interest in the property without plaintiff’s signature. Because the plaintiff never signed the mortgage, the contract was rendered void and unenforceable.
The Court of Appeals also discussed why defendant’s argument failed with regards to the plaintiff subsequently ratifying the agreement. FollowingUtica State Sav. Bank v. Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich. 568, 579 (1937), the Court held that contracts that are void ab initiocannot be ratified. Because the mortgage was void without plaintiff’s signature, she could not ratify it, and therefore, her knowledge of the mortgage was immaterial.
A link to the opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2019/342967.html
This article was written by Emily Honet, Law Clerk
