Quiet title action; Delivery of a deed; Comparing Thatcher v Wardens, etc, of St Andrew’s Church of Ann Arbor, Loomis v Loomis, & Cook v Sadler; Consideration of actions taken on the property in determining whether title was effectively transferred; Haasjes v Woldring; Personal representative (PR)

Holding that the deeds at issue “were considered delivered based on the parties’ intent and subsequent actions[,]” the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-Ivan Malnar on plaintiff-Ritter’s claim to quiet title. The case arose “from a decades-long dispute in ownership over a 40-acre parcel of land” referred to as the West 1/2. Ritter was the PR of the estate of Matt Malnar. Ivan and Ritter’s father, Raymond, were two of Matt’s children. Multiple quitclaim deeds were involved. Ritter contended “the probate court erred in concluding that delivery occurred because the deeds were returned to” a title company (Delta Abstract & Title) “as an escrow agent, which was ineffective to convey title.” Unlike the probate court, the court proceeded “with the understanding that Delta Abstract & Title retained all of the executed and notarized deeds.” It concluded the facts here were most like those of Thatcher, Loomis, and Sadler, “where the deed was executed and kept in the hands of a third party but considered delivered nonetheless, and the grantee acted as if they owned the property.” As in Sadler, the deed from Raymond and his wife “Suk was placed beyond their control.” A deed drafted by an attorney (H) was sent to them “in 1990 with directions to execute it and return it to his office. The deed did not” initially reach them due to a “change of address, so it was resent to them in” 1994. They executed and notarized it on 2/18/94. “The bottom of the deed stated, ‘When Recorded Return To: Ivan Malnar’ although [H] was to receive it on Ivan’s behalf. Raymond and Suk ‘reserved no dominion or control’ over the deed because, although [H] did not remember ever receiving the deed, and assumed Delta Abstract & Title was holding it as an escrow agent, the deed’s final destination was in a storage warehouse belonging to Delta Abstract & Title where it was not discovered until 2021.” The court noted that “the deed transferred the property unconditionally to Ivan.” As to behavior and actions as evidence of delivery, “Ivan paying taxes on the property, and erecting buildings on the property, just like Edwin in the Sadler case did, ‘gives color to the claim that an understanding between him and [Matt] that he should have’ the West 1/2 as his own.” The court also affirmed the “denial of summary disposition to Ritter on Ivan’s counterclaim because whether Ivan had title” by adverse possession was moot.