Quiet title; Res judicata; Whether a consent judgment granted a party a redemption right

The court held that (1) the circuit court did not err in declining to apply res judicata based on related district court proceedings and (2) the district court consent judgment of possession did not grant plaintiff-Silver Valley a redemption right. Thus, it concluded the circuit court did not err in granting defendants summary disposition, denying it to Silver Valley, and quieting title to the property at issue in favor of defendants-Borowiczes. In 2014, defendant-Estate entered into a land contract with Silver Valley, agreeing to sell it 17 acres of land (the Property). “Silver Valley failed to remain current on its payments under the land contract” and a novation agreement was entered into in 2018 by the Estate, Silver Valley, and a trust (referred to as the Trust) pursuant to which “the Trust replaced Silver Valley as the land contract vendee.” After the Trust did not make payments, the Estate in 2021 initiated the district court proceedings seeking possession of the Property. The district court entered the consent judgment as “to Silver Valley, only. The judgment provided that the Estate had the right to possess the Property, and an order of eviction could be issued relative to Silver Valley if, after 90 days, it failed to pay the total amount due[.]” The Estate and the Trust later “executed a written agreement terminating the land contract.” The Estate eventually sold the Property to the Borowiczes. Silver Valley subsequently “informed the Estate that it wished to pay the total amount due under the land contract and close on the Property.” Silver Valley filed this action after the Estate rejected its proposal. It argued on appeal that “under the doctrine of res judicata, the district court consent judgment should have precluded the circuit court from determining the parties’ rights on the basis of the novation agreement.” But the court noted that “res judicata only applies to bar claims that were actually litigated in summary proceedings,” and thus, Silver Valley had to “establish that the operation of the novation agreement was actually litigated in the district court proceedings. It was not.” As to its redemption right argument, “the consent judgment did not establish Silver Valley’s right to redemption. At the time of its entry, Silver Valley had already given up its redemption right, along with its other property rights, pursuant to the novation agreement.” Affirmed.