Action to determine title to real property & set aside a quitclaim deed; Whether a notary public’s affidavit was adequate to correct alleged errors in the dates of execution & acknowledgement; MCL 565.202; Cipriano v. Tocco (ED MI); Statutory interpretation; Macomb Cnty. Prosecutor v. Murphy; “Shall”; Old Kent Bank v. Kal Kustom, Enters.; The Recording Requirements Act (MCL 565.201 et seq.); Principle that improperly acknowledged deeds shall not be recorded; MCL 565.8; MCL 565.46 & 565.47; MCL 565.201(1)(c); A court’s authority to invalidate an improper notarial act; MCL 55.307(2); Principle that an invalid acknowledgement does not render void an otherwise valid conveyance of real property; Kerschensteiner v. Northern MI Land Co.; Turner v. Peoples State Bank; Irvine v. Irvine; Evans v. Holloway Sand & Gravel, Inc.; MCL 565.604; Schmalzriedt v. Titsworth; Claim that the conveyance was not supported by valuable consideration; General Motors Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Revenue Div.; In re Rudell Estate; Distinguishing Daane v. Lovell

In an issue of first impression, the court held that a notary public’s “‘saving affidavit’ under MCL 565.202 only applies to errors or discrepancies in a person’s name.” Thus, the affidavit here was insufficient to correct the alleged error in the date of acknowledgement on the deed. However, “the probate court erred in setting aside the deed solely due to a defect in the acknowledgement without also finding a lack of good faith or valuable consideration, or the presence of another invalidating circumstance, such as fraud, mistake of fact, coercion, or undue influence.” Thus, the court reversed the probate court’s order granting the petition to determine title to the real property at issue and to set aside the quitclaim deed, and remanded for further proceedings. The deed conveyed the property to the decedent’s sons, one of the petitioners (Frank) and the respondent. “According to the notations on the document, the deed was acknowledged by decedent,” Frank, and respondent on 5/14/07, before L, a notary public whose commission would expire on 12/30/14. Petitioners argued that the deed “was fraudulent and void under MCL 565.46 and MCL 565.47 because it was improperly notarized” and, thus, could not be validly recorded. L later “executed an affidavit averring that she witnessed decedent execute the quitclaim deed ‘on or about April 13, 2009,’ and that the date written and printed on the deed was incorrect.” Respondent argued that L’s “affidavit was adequate to correct the alleged errors in the dates of execution and acknowledgment pursuant to MCL 565.202.” Based on the “plain language of MCL 565.202 in context with the other sections of the act,” the court disagreed, rejecting his argument that the statute “allows for the broad correction of errors on recorded documents by subsequently recording” an affidavit. However, it also concluded that the probate court “failed to recognize that under Michigan law, an invalid acknowledgment does not render void an otherwise valid conveyance of real estate.” The probate court did not make any findings as to “whether good faith and valuable consideration were present.” Thus, given the relevant case law “and the text of MCL 565.404,” remand was necessary for further evidence to be taken on these and any other relevant issues.