Promissory estoppel; Cove Creek Condo Ass’n v Vistal Land & Home Dev, LLC; Quiet title; MCL 600.2932; MCR 3.411; Trademark Props of MI, LLC v Federal Nat’l Mtg Ass’n; The trial court’s findings of fact & conclusions of law; MCR 2.517(A); Clean hands

The court held that the trial court did not err by quieting title to the disputed property in favor of appellee and dismissing appellant’s counterclaims. It also did not err by declining to apply the doctrine of clean hands to appellee. The trial court entered an order quieting title to a 12-foot strip of property in favor of appellee, and dismissing appellant’s quiet title and promissory estoppel counterclaims regarding the same property. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying him relief on promissory estoppel or quiet title grounds. “[T]he trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law met the requirements of MCR 2.517(A). [It] set forth a fairly lengthy statement of facts before concluding that [appellant] did not meet his burden of proof. [Its] finding that the parties executed the deeds as a sham foreclosed [appellant’s] argument that [appellee] promised to convey the 12-foot strip of property for as long as” appellant needed. “These findings established that the trial court was aware of the factual issues and correctly applied the law to the facts to satisfy the requirements of MCR 2.517(A).” In addition, under either scenario regarding quiet title, the sole owner of the contested property was appellee, and appellant had no rights to the contested property. The court also rejected appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by applying the doctrine of clean hands to him and declining to apply it to appellee. Granting appellant “relief or applying the doctrine to [appellee’s] claim would have permitted the fraud orchestrated against the Township to continue. In context, it served the Township’s interests for the trial court to quiet title in” appellee’s favor. Affirmed.