Real property ownership dispute; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Innocent misrepresentation; Undue influence/breach of fiduciary duty; Promissory estoppel; Quiet title; “Gift”

The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, undue influence, and quiet title. But because the fourth count of her “complaint, titled ‘equitable estopple [sic],’” substantively stated a claim for promissory estoppel and the record indicated that summary disposition of that claim was not currently warranted, it reversed the dismissal of that count. The underlying dispute involved real property purchased by plaintiff but thereafter titled in the name of defendant-UNCORKbuild. First, plaintiff argued “that she established claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation, and the trial court erred by dismissing counts one and two of her complaint.” Defendants responded that the two counts were correctly dismissed “because, in relevant part, misrepresentation cannot be based upon future promises.” The court agreed with defendants. It found that while plaintiff summarily asserted “that defendants made ‘misrepresentations,’ when her complaint and affidavit are fairly considered in context, the essence of her issue is simply that defendants failed to fulfill their agreement with her to allow the subject property to be used as a ‘House of Prayer.’ This allegedly broken promise by defendants, seemingly the result of a falling out between plaintiff and [defendant-]Hooker shortly after closing, cannot be remedied through a claim for fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation.” As to the undue influence claim, the court agreed with defendants’ argument that “plaintiff failed to allege an underlying misrepresentation or other type of coercion to sustain” this claim. Next. plaintiff argued “that she established a claim for promissory estoppel and that the trial court erred by dismissing that count.” The court agreed with her “that the fourth count in her complaint actually states a claim for promissory estoppel, notwithstanding that it was mislabeled as equitable estoppel.” Further, it also agreed “with plaintiff that, in light of the record currently before” it, dismissal of this claim was not warranted. However, it agreed “with defendants that the independently-labeled ‘quiet title’ count of the complaint misses the mark because plaintiff did not allege a preexisting superior interest in the” property. Finally, because there was a question of fact as to the intent element, defendants were “not entitled to summary disposition of the entire case under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis that the subject property was a ‘gift.’” Remanded.