Action to quiet title & for trespass, nuisance, & slander of title; Collateral estoppel; Ditmore v. Michalik; Estes v. Titus; Mutuality of estoppel; Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co.; Detroit v. Qualls; Board of Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs v. Schultz; Privity; Phinisee v. Rogers; Plain error review; Demski v. Petlick; Whether an inconsistent ruling existed in another case; Town Ctr. Flats, LLC v. Shelby Twp. (Unpub.)

The court held that the trial court properly ruled that the issue whether plaintiff-TCD acquired title to the property via a quitclaim deed “had been actually litigated and conclusively decided by a final judgment in the previous bankruptcy proceeding in which TCD was represented by counsel and had an opportunity to fully participate.” Thus, TCD was barred by collateral estoppel from relitigating the issue of ownership of the property. The court affirmed summary disposition in favor of all defendants. TCD sued for trespass, nuisance, slander of title, and to quiet title, basing its ownership claim on the 2009 quitclaim deed from a nonparty. It did “not dispute that the ownership issue was fully litigated and decided by the bankruptcy court,” but rather argued “that the trial court should not have given the bankruptcy court’s decision collateral estoppel effect because” an inconsistent ruling in another case existed. The court found no merit to this argument. TCD relied on Town Center Flats, “in which TCD’s affiliate, TCF, filed an action for injunctive relief and damages against Shelby Township because the township refused to enforce a deed restriction.” The trial court dismissed that action, holding that the “township was not a proper party to the action. TCF appealed that decision but” the court had affirmed. While “the township disputed whether TCF actually owned the subject property, the issue of ownership was not litigated or finally decided by the circuit court in that case. Nor did this Court render any opinion in that regard. The circuit court dismissed that action because the township lacked legal authority to enforce a deed restriction, and this Court affirmed that decision on that limited basis. The question of the property’s ownership was not essential to the judgment that was actually litigated in that matter.” TCD acknowledged “that neither the circuit court nor this Court actually addressed or decided the ownership of” the property in that case. TCD did not establish “that any decision inconsistent with the bankruptcy court’s decision” existed. Thus, it could not establish plain error that affected its substantial rights. Further, it was “not entitled to amend its complaint to assert this theory of relief because such amendment would be futile.”