Quiet title; MCL 600.2932; Title by warranty deed; MCL 565.151; Fee simple; Eastbrook Homes, Inc v Department of Treasury; Interpretation of a deed; Michigan Dep’t of Natural Res v Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc; Equitable mortgage; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Titan Ins Co v Hyten; Principle that a plaintiff alleging fraud must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud; MCR 2.112(B)(1)

The court held that the trial court properly found no cause of action with respect to the quiet title claim because plaintiff failed to establish that she acquired and possessed some interest, legal or equitable, in the property. It also held that plaintiff failed to establish her claim of fraud. The trial court issued a finding of no cause of action following a bench trial in this action in which plaintiff raised a number of claims against defendants relating to foreclosed property she previously owned, including a claim to quiet title to the property and a claim of fraud. On appeal, the court declined to disturb the trial court’s finding that the deed was not an equitable mortgage. “The warranty deed establishe[d] that the parties intended the transaction to operate as a conveyance—not as a loan.” While plaintiff claimed “the monthly option payments were evidence of loan ‘installment payments,’ she provided no evidence that the payments were anything more than her option obligations while being allowed to reside on the premises during the term of the option.” She failed to show “the trial court’s findings were erroneous or that the court made an error of law.” The court also disagreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by finding she failed to prove her claim of fraud, noting that even if she could establish the other five elements of a fraud claim, the trial court did not err by finding she failed to show an injury. Plaintiff asserted “she suffered damages because she ‘took this offer knowing at some point she was going to exercise her option to repurchase the property.’” But she “was not deprived of her contractual right to exercise the option to purchase before it expired. Plaintiff did not exercise her option to purchase and it expired by its own terms. Plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of any purported fraud related to the option agreement.” Affirmed.