Davids v. Davis
| Decision Date | 22 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 107382 |
| Citation | 179 Mich.App. 72,445 N.W.2d 460 |
| Parties | Lawrence A. DAVIDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred G. DAVIS, Jr., Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred G. Davis, Sr., Deceased, Marie O. Davis, Fred G. Davis, Jr., and Maria T. Davis, Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Irving G. SNYDER, Jr., and Diamond S, Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Whittaker & Maddox by R. Thomas Whittaker, Midland, for plaintiff-appellee.
Wesley P. Hackett, Jr., East Lansing, for defendants.
Before WAHLS, P.J., and WEAVER and CAVANAGH, JJ.
In this action to quiet title in a parcel of undeveloped property situated in Jerome Township, Midland County, defendants appeal as of right from an order of the Midland Circuit Court declaring plaintiff owner of the property by adverse possession and awarding costs to third-party defendants incurred in connection with a third-party complaint filed by defendants and determined by the circuit court to have been frivolous under M.C.L. Sec. 600.2591(3)(a)(ii); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2591(3)(a)(ii). We affirm.
The record reveals that Irving G. Snyder is a real estate developer who planned to develop a condominium project on the northeast shore of Sanford Lake in Jerome Township. In order to obtain the land necessary to begin the project, Snyder purchased various parcels of property in the area over a period of years. In 1976, after a year of negotiations, he purchased two parcels, which will be referred to as parcels 1A and 1B, from Fred G. Davis, Sr., and his wife, Marie O. Davis. The parcels were conveyed by warranty deed at Snyder's request to Peter H. Hattersley and Darlene Hattersley of San Francisco, California, and were subsequently conveyed by the Hattersleys to Snyder. The deed conveying the property from Fred G. Davis, Sr., to the Hattersleys was witnessed by Fred G. Davis, Jr., and a realtor, William T. Jung. Snyder testified that, just prior to the purchase of these parcels, Davis, Sr., had taken him in a jeep for a tour of the property and that during the tour, upon seeking a path leading onto the property which was blocked by a chain stretched between two poles, was told by Davis, Sr., that the property just south of the blocked path belonged to Lawrence A. Davids. Davids is the plaintiff in this case and the property just south of the blocked path is a parcel of land which will be referred to as parcel 2. At trial, Davids testified that the two poles and chain blocking the path, along with a wire fence which ran along the length of the northern border of parcel 2 and the southern border of parcel 1B, were installed by him in 1959 or 1960. Davids explained that in 1955 he received a deed from Olive K. Touse conveying to him a portion of parcel 2 and that in 1961, after Touse's death, he received from her estate a second deed conveying to him a further interest in the property. It was Davids' opinion that these two deeds vested him with ownership of all of parcel 2.
In 1978, Davids deeded parcel 2 to Richard C. Learman in two separate transactions, and in 1984 Learman reconveyed the property to Davids. In 1986, Davids conveyed by quitclaim deed most of parcel 2 to Snyder, and a month later, Snyder conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to Diamond S, Inc., which is wholly owned by Snyder. At trial, Snyder acknowledged that in the title insurance commitment regarding parcel 2 issued by Superior Abstract it was stated that a portion of the parcel being conveyed by Davids was never properly conveyed to Davids and that, in order to secure title insurance, a proper conveyance of the portion of the parcel in issue would have to be obtained from several named individuals who still apparently held a title interest in the property. One of those individuals was Davis, Sr. Since the latter had died in 1984, the title insurance company required that proof be submitted regarding the identities of the heirs of Davis, Sr., and that those heirs convey their interest in the property to Davids.
Prior to this time, but after Davis, Sr., had died and his estate was being probated, Maria T. Davis, the wife of Fred G. Davis, Jr., and thus the daughter-in-law of Davis, Sr., was asked by the attorney handling the probate of the estate to sign a quitclaim deed relinquishing her interest in the disputed portion of parcel 2. She was told, she testified, that "I may as well sign for this sliver of land, because we didn't own it anyhow." She refused to sign the quitclaim deed and instead, after researching the matter, discovered a 1912 deed in which the disputed portion of land was conveyed by Fred Allswede, as guardian of the estate of John W.H. Brooks, an incompetent person, to Daniel N. Davis, the father of Fred G. Davis, Sr. When Davids filed the present action to quiet title in the property against Fred G. Davis, Jr., individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Fred G. Davis, Sr., Marie O. Davis, the widow of Fred G. Davis, Sr. and Maria T. Davis, the latter parties contended that the 1912 deed established ownership of the property in the Davis family and that that ownership had never been conveyed or otherwise forfeited.
In 1987, the Davises filed a third-party complaint against Snyder and Diamond S, Inc., seeking a decree quieting title in parcels 1A, 1B, and 2 and requesting the issuance of a restraining order forbidding construction or the filing of building permits by Snyder or Diamond S, Inc. The Davises alleged that the 1976 deed of Fred G. Davis, Sr., to the Hattersleys had been altered, that the Hattersleys had no knowledge of the deed between themselves and Snyder, and that the Hattersleys had never delivered a deed to Snyder. The sole support for the third-party complaint was the claim of Maria T. Davis that the signature of her father-in-law on the 1976 deed was not authentic. She continued in this assertion even though her own handwriting expert opined that the signature was genuine, even though she knew that the deed and its supporting documentation had been recorded for over ten years, and even though her own husband had signed the deed itself as a witness. Construction or the filing of building permits by Snyder or Diamond S, Inc., was enjoined by the trial court, which, however, ruled that such action could be taken if Snyder and Diamond S, Inc., posted a $10,000 bond running to the Davises. The bond was posted and the restrictions were removed.
After a trial was conducted on November 18 and 19, 1987, the circuit court issued a seventeen-page opinion on December 1, 1987, in which it held, in pertinent part, that Davids owned parcel 2 in fee simple by adverse possession. Moreover, in a judgment issued on February 24, 1988, the circuit court awarded costs and fees to Snyder and Diamond S, Inc., on the Davises' third-party complaint on the ground
that that complaint was frivolous
under M.C.L. Sec. 600.2591(3)(a)(ii); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2591(3)(a)(ii).
On appeal, the Davises raise three arguments. First, they contend that "the trial judge erred in finding that defendants/appellants did not have record title to parcel 2." We disagree.
The trial court found that the recorded titles relied upon by the parties were deficient to evidence a fee simple interest in the disputed property. Because of this finding, the court decided the case on the basis of the parties' relative possessory interests. Davids' title was found insufficient because the disputed portion of parcel 2, although not specifically exempted in his 1961 deed from the estate of Olive K. Touse, could not have been conveyed in that document since that deed was itself based on a conveyance which specifically exempted that portion of the parcel. The Davises' title to the disputed portion of parcel 2 was also found to be insufficient by the trial court because, even assuming that Daniel N. Davis, the father of Fred G. Davis, Sr., held the property under the 1912 deed from Fred Allswede, there was absolutely no evidence produced at trial showing that Davis, Sr., was the sole heir of his father. Regarding this issue, the following statements were made at trial by the court and counsel for the Davises:
[The Court: ] We have a deed here from John Brooks to Dan Davis. We have no connection between the Dan Davis and Fred Davis. We have to connect those up. There wasn't--there apparently wasn't any title papers, but there was obviously some probate papers that tied them, and I don't have any of that.
* * * * * *
[Mr. Kahn (counsel for the Davises):] Now, as far as ... Fred Davis, Senior, is concerned he was one of the heirs of Dan Davis, his father. And the title of Dan Davis never having been conveyed away as the [sic] it affects the subject property, is in my opinion the evidence that Fred Davis is the--is one of the heirs and as such inherited whatever interest Dan Davis had.
The Court: I can't go with you on that. You're going to have to tie it together.
Mr. Kahn: Now, the title to this property has to be in some name. If it was in Daniel Davis' name to begin with, then it would be--going to his heirs. There was never any conveyance from Daniel Davis of the subject property to anybody.
The Court: Where did he die?
Mr. Kahn: When?
The Court: Yes. Where and when did he die? Is there a probate record on his death?
Mr. Kahn: 1944. He died in 1944.
The Court: Well, it's up to you. I'm just probably speculating here without having really studied the title, but I'm a little mystified until that link is put together.
You have the opportunity to do that, and that would then get down to one simple question. That would be: What is the adverse possession of rights? And that's one I probably will take under advisement.
Mr. Kahn: Okay.
The other thing I want to say in response also is that I'm satisfied that real estate vests in the heirs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaRose Market, Inc. v. Sylvan Center, Inc.
...M.C.L. § 600.2591; M.S.A. § 27A.2591, to reimburse a prevailing party for its costs incurred during the course of frivolous litigation. Davids, supra; Wells v. Dep't of Corrections, 447 Mich. 415, 419, 523 N.W.2d 217 (1994). A claim is frivolous when (1) the party's primary purpose was to h......
-
Jonkers v. Summit Twp.
...in an action to quiet title; those findings will be given weight and reversed only if they are clearly erroneous. Davids v. Davis, 179 Mich. App. 72, 81, 445 N.W.2d 460 (1989). The clear-error standard requires us to give deference to the lower court and find clear error only if we are neve......
-
DeWald v. Isola
...163 Mich.App. 784, 792-795, 415 N.W.2d 310 (1987); Hicks v. Ottewell, 174 Mich.App. 750, 436 N.W.2d 453 (1989); Davids v. Davis, 179 Mich.App. 72, 445 N.W.2d 460 (1989). Defense counsel, at the Monday, December 7, 1987, hearing, emphasized the inconvenience which he, defendants, and the tri......
-
Morris v. City of Detroit
...imposes an affirmative duty of reasonable inquiry into the validity of the pleadings or other documents signed. Davids v. Davis, 179 Mich.App. 72, 89, 445 N.W.2d 460 (1989). The rule also implicitly requires reasonable inquiry to prevent a pleading or other document from being interposed fo......