Validity of a lis pendens; Malice; Wells Fargo Bank v Country Place Condo Ass’n; Falsity; Slander of title; MCL 565.108; Anton, Sowerby & Assoc, Inc v Mr C’s Lake Orion, LLC; Stonehenge Condo Ass’n v Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co, NA (Unpub); Value Investors LLC v Yatooma (Unpub); The “raise or waive” rule; Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC; Special damages; Failure to mitigate damages

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting appellees summary disposition as to their slander of title claims or in its calculation of damages. Appellants sought reversion of appellees’ condo units and recorded a notice of lis pendens against the units. Appellees sought summary disposition and, while their motion was pending, they amended their counterclaim to include slander-of-title claims, alleging the lis pendens contained knowingly false statements and was filed with malice. The trial court ruled in favor of appellees in 2020 on appellants’ claims and in 2022 on appellees’ counterclaim. It granted them special damages, and denied appellants’ motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court rejected appellants’ argument that the trial court committed palpable error by awarding summary disposition to appellees. “First, we note that the trial court ruled that [they] acted maliciously when they did not release the lis pendens after the award of summary disposition” in 11/20. They also did not carry “their burden of demonstrating that the trial court committed palpable error in concluding that malice was present when [they] maintained their lis pendens after the award of summary disposition” in 11/20. “Their argument that a slander-of-title claim cannot be premised on the wrongful continuation of a lis pendens is not consistent with published opinions regarding liens generally or with this Court’s unpublished opinions concerning lis pendens specifically.” Further, the “trial court had discretion on the motion for reconsideration to decline to consider new legal theories that could have been presented when the motion was initially decided.” As such, it “did not abuse its discretion when it declined to grant reconsideration on the basis of” appellants’ new legal theory that “the trial court erred by finding that they acted maliciously by not removing the lis pendens after the award of summary disposition because there was no final judgment and they could still appeal that decision.” Based on the arguments appellants “made to the trial court, they are arguably precluded from contending on appeal that they maintained a reasonable belief in the validity of the lis pendens even after the” 11/20 award of summary disposition. They “cannot establish that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for reconsideration with respect to the elements of malice and falsity.” The court also rejected their claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for reconsideration of the special damages awards because appellees failed to mitigate their damages. “[T]he trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to grant reconsideration on the basis of that new legal theory.” And the court declined to address it further. Affirmed.