e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85219
Opinion Date : 02/13/2026
e-Journal Date : 03/03/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Bunker Trust
Practice Area(s) : Real Property Alternative Dispute Resolution
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Swartzle, Maldonado, and Ackerman
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Quiet title; Enforcement of arbitration award; American Arbitration Association (AAA) Rule 33; Gordon Sel-Way, Inc v Spence Bros, Inc; Arbitrator authority; AAA Rule 35; TSP Servs, Inc v National-Std, LLC; Judicial review of arbitration for legal error; Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch v Gavin; Delivery of deed; Resh v Fox; Lady Bird deed

Summary

The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the parties’ agreement and the AAA Commercial Rules, and that no material legal error appeared on the face of the arbitration award invalidating the Lady Bird deeds and quieting title in the trust. After the settlors’ deaths, a beneficiary dispute arose over four recorded Lady Bird deeds that purported to convey parcels held in a revocable trust to respondent and other grantees, including deeds that were later altered and re-recorded after the settlor’s death to list the trust or the settlor as trustee as grantor. The probate court enforced the arbitration decision required by the trust instrument and entered a judgment quieting title in the trust based on the arbitrator’s determination that the deeds were invalid. On appeal, the court held that the parties’ attorneys executed a written agreement waiving oral testimony and submitting the matter on briefs and exhibits, and AAA Rule 33 expressly permits the parties to “agree to waive oral hearing,” so the arbitrator acted within his discretion to control and expedite proceedings. It rejected respondent’s arguments that cancellation of a later hearing and closure of the record exceeded arbitral authority, explaining the AAA Rules permit the arbitrator to determine admissibility and completeness of the record and that courts may not probe an arbitrator’s “mental process” or reweigh evidence. The court further held respondent’s substantive attacks impermissibly sought review of factual findings, and that the award identified at least one independent, legally proper basis for invalidity, lack of delivery, because delivery “of a deed is essential to pass title” and the arbitrator found the settlors lacked intent and the deeds were not validly delivered, leaving title in the trust. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion