Quiet title; MCL 600.2932; Plaintiff’s burden to show a prima facie case of title; Validity of a deed; Forgery; Groth v Singerman; Witness credibility; Unjust enrichment claim & request to reopen the proofs raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3)

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in ruling that plaintiff-Calloway’s signature, and thus the entire deed in question, were invalid and void. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s order quieting title in Calloway’s favor. The trial court started its analysis “with the fundamental requirement that deeds must be properly notarized under Michigan law. The evidence clearly established that Calloway’s signature was never notarized.” A notary unequivocally testified that she only notarized defendant-Green’s “signature, as evidenced by her notation ‘for Shalonda Green’ above her notary signature and the absence of Calloway’s name in her notary log.” In addition, an expert’s (S) “handwriting analysis testimony strongly supported the trial court’s conclusion. [S’s] methodology involved comparing the questioned signature to thirteen known signature samples spanning timeframes before and after the questioned document. His conclusion that it was ‘highly probable’ the signature was not genuine represents a high degree of certainty. Finally, Calloway’s consistent denial that he signed the document, combined with his testimony that he first saw the 2014 deed in 2022, supported the [trial] court’s finding that he did not sign the 2014 deed.” The court held that, having “established that the deed was not properly acknowledged and the signature was forged, the trial court correctly concluded that the deed is void.” it also rejected defendants’ contention “the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen proofs or hold an evidentiary hearing to compute offsets for unjust enrichment.” They first raised this claim and request in their motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that they “could have raised this claim at any point prior to the trial court’s entry of a judgment in favor of Calloway, but elected not to do so. On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for reconsideration.”