In a recent decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals, Andrews v Brown Docket No. 350659, the Court quieted title in favor of the Plaintiff despite errors for a number of reasons.
The Plaintiff and Defendant both claimed to have title to the property. Plaintiff had a deed signed by the property owner and notarized that was recorded in September 2015. Plaintiff’s deed correctly listed the address of the property but used an incorrect legal description.
Defendant received their deed signed by the property owner’s attorney-in-fact and also notarized in November 2016. Defendant claimed superior title because their deed was originally issued to another party in June 2015, prior to Plaintiff’s deed, but that deed was never recorded.
The Defendant brought forward several reasons to invalidate the Plaintiff’s title including: 1) that the notarization was forged, 2) that the property owner’s signature was forged, and 3) that the incorrect legal description invalidated the title. The Court found for the Plaintiff on all three of these issues.
The Court noted that the law states that an invalid or absent notarization does not void an otherwise valid conveyance as long as the plaintiff had a good-faith belief that it was properly notarized. There was no evidence otherwise in this case.
It is also presumed that any signatures affixed to a deed are accurate and valid. The burden of proving otherwise is on the Defendant. Defendant was only able to provide an un-notarized affidavit from the original property owner, who failed to appear before the Court to confirm this allegation.
Lastly, the Court noted that the recording of the deed, despite having an incorrect legal description, was still identifiable because the address was correct.
Defendant then attempted to prove its interest in the property was superior to Plaintiff’s because Defendant was a bona fide purchaser because they did not have notice. The Court disagreed here as well. While the Court noted that the first purchase of Defendant’s deed could not have been on notice since the purchase came prior to Plaintiff’s, there had since been three other conveyances, each of whom would have been able to see the Plaintiff’s interest had they only looked.
As a result, the Court quieted title in favor of the Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff’s deed having errors, because it had been properly recorded prior to Defendant’s deed, the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove that Plaintiff’s deed was invalid. The Defendant failed to do so.
There are a few key takeaways from this case. The first is to ensure that all deeds and related documentation is completely accurate and properly recorded at the time of conveyance. This would have helped avoid this problem altogether. The second is to ensure to do a title search when preparing to purchase a property. Had the Defendant checked, the Defendant likely would not have purchased the property and avoided this issue entirely.
The full text of the opinion can be found at: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2020/350659.html
