Involuntary dismissal; Whether a party was entitled to enforce an easement agreement; Distinguishing Conlin v Upton; Standing for a fiduciary duty claim; Presentation of an issue

The court held that the trial court did not err in granting involuntary dismissal to appellee-Moorings. Also, appellant-Harbor Isles failed to show an error in the trial court’s determination that Harbor Isles did not show what fiduciary duty appellee-Gould owed to Harbor Isles. This civil action arose “from a business dispute between Harbor Isles, which operates a private marina, and three” condo associations that own and manage boat slips in the marina—Moorings and appellees-SJIYC and Dane’s Landing. As to the involuntary dismissal, the court found that “while Harbor Isles’ evidence may have shown that [it] possessed whatever rights or interests in the property” a predecessor (Mikler Harbor) had, “it did not establish what the nature and scope of those legal rights or interests were—namely, that Mikler Harbor was” another nonparty’s “successor or assign such that Harbor Isles necessarily assumed that status through the quitclaim deed and could enforce the Moorings rec agreement as a result.” The court concluded that “nothing in Conlin—or any other authority identified by Harbor Isles—suggests that Harbor Isles can enforce and benefit from a covenant that runs with that property without proving the chain of title to the property through which it, in fact, received that claimed right.” Harbor Isles next argued “that it was improperly prevented from providing proof of title at the bench trial through the testimony of its representative[.]” However, the record did “not bear out this claim.” Harbor Isles failed to show “any error by the trial court in its handling of Harbor Isles’ proofs on this point at trial or its assessment of their adequacy.” The court turned “next to Harbor Isles’ challenge to the trial court’s grant of summary disposition” for Gould. The court agreed “with the trial court’s conclusion that Harbor Isles has failed to adequately plead or otherwise demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship between it and Gould.” Thus, it held that Gould was correctly granted “summary disposition on Harbor Isles’ claim of breach of fiduciary duty. Even looking past the preservation and presentation issues in Harbor Isles’ arguments on appeal,” it failed to adequately plead or show “that Gould owed a fiduciary duty to Harbor Isles with respect to any of the allegations Harbor Isles has raised against him.” Lastly, as to the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for SJIYC, Harbor Isles offered no reason why the court should overlook a “significant deficiency in its presentation of the issue on appeal, and” it declined to do so. Affirmed.