Dispute over ownership of real property; Quiet title; MCL 600.2932; Adams v Adams; Collateral estoppel; Estes v Titus; Judicial estoppel; Opland v Kiesgan; Harmless error

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendants summary disposition of plaintiff’s quiet-title claim, or by denying summary disposition for plaintiff. Plaintiff sought to quiet title to the subject property in its favor. It did not present a deed, but claimed title to the property on the basis of various prior adjudications. The trial court denied summary disposition for plaintiff and granted it for defendants, finding plaintiff failed to present evidence to support it ever owned the property. On appeal, the court found harmless the trial court’s failure to consider plaintiff’s argument that it was entitled to summary disposition on the basis of collateral and judicial estoppel. In one of the prior adjudications, “the bankruptcy court did not address ownership of [the property], let alone determine that plaintiff owned it.” And in another of the adjudications, “the issue central to this case was not actually and necessarily” determined. Further, the trial court applied the proper standard in reviewing defendants’ summary disposition motion. “Because the undisputed evidence support[ed] plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of title to [the property], summary disposition was properly granted” for defendants. “It reasonably follows that plaintiff was not entitled to summary disposition in its favor on the quiet-title claim.” Affirmed.