Foreclosure of a construction lien; The Construction Lien Act (CLA) (MCL 570.1101 et seq.); Ronnisch Constr. Group, Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC; Jeddo Drywall, Inc. v. Cambridge Inv. Group, Inc.; MCL 570.1114; "Contractor"; MCL 570.1103(5); "Owner"; MCL 570.1105(3); Common law fraud; Cummins v. Robinson Twp.; Fraud in the inducement; Samuel D Begola Servs., Inc. v. Wild Bros.; Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc.; Principle that a person who acquires property via a forged deed is not a bona fide purchaser for value; Special Prop. VI, LLC v. Woodruff; Effect of a forged deed; Fletcher v. Dutton; Contracting with a party that failed to obtain equitable title to the property; MCL 570.1107(3); Effect of a land contract; Graves v. American Acceptance Mtg. Corp. (On Rehearing); Necessity of paying part of the purchase price to obtain equitable title; Steward v. Panek; Unjust enrichment; AFT MI v. Michigan; Karaus v. Bank of NY Mellon; Slander of title; Anton, Sowerby & Assoc., Inc. v. Mr. C’S Lake Orion, LLC; MCL 565.108; Federal Nat’l Mtg. Ass’n v. Lagoons Forest Condo. Ass’n; B & B Inv. Group v. Gitler; Wells Fargo Bank v. Country Place Condo. Ass’n

The court affirmed the dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim for foreclosure of a construction lien because the third-party defendants-Wilkinsons (with whom it contracted) did not obtain equitable title to the property at issue. Dismissal of defendant’s unjust enrichment counterclaim was also proper given that there was no evidence plaintiff-property owner requested its services or misled defendant, and an express contract existed between defendant and the Wilkinsons. But the court concluded that plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to establish his prima facie case of slander of title and thus, the trial court erred in dismissing it. Plaintiff entered into a land contract to sell the property to the Wilkinsons, but their down payment check was “dishonored because it was drawn on a closed account.” Defendant entered into a contract with them to install a driveway on the property. The check they gave defendant was dishonored for the same reason. Defendant filed a construction lien against the property under the CLA. Plaintiff sued for slander of title, and defendant asserted its counterclaims. The court concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the no-account check rendered the land contract void where it “was ‘merely voidable.’” However, given that “defendant contracted with a party who was neither an owner or a lessee of the property, or otherwise had no equitable title to the property,” it was not entitled to a construction lien. A contractor under the CLA is defined as “a person who, pursuant to a contract with the owner or lessee of real property, provides an improvement to real property.” Defendant was not a contractor because the Wilkinsons were not owners and they did not “ever obtain any equitable interest from the land contract.” As they failed to “pay ‘part of the purchase price,’ they never acquired equitable title[.]” As to plaintiff’s slander of title claim, while the trial court found that he failed to allege actual malice, the court disagreed. He “emphasized that defendant filed the claim of lien after the Wilkinsons no longer had an interest in the property” as well as that “defendant ‘intentionally perpetrated and maintained a false claim’ on plaintiff’s title and ‘wrongfully and maliciously’ refused to remove the lien . . . .” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.