Quiet title; Failure to state a valid defense; MCR 2.116(C)(9); Pleading admissions; MCR 2.111(E)(1); Waiver for missing transcript; MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a); People v Anderson; Judicial disqualification; MCR 2.003(C)(1); TT v KL

The court held that defendants waived appellate review of their challenge to the quiet-title summary-disposition ruling by failing to provide the relevant hearing transcript. It also held that the existing record independently supported quieting title in plaintiff, and it rejected defendants’ judicial-disqualification claim. Plaintiff purchased the property at a foreclosure sale after defendants lost multiple prior lawsuits and appeals challenging the foreclosure. He then brought this quiet-title action alleging defendants continued trying to cloud title to the property. Defendants answered only paragraphs 1 through 27 of the complaint and did not respond to paragraphs 28 through 53, which included the quiet-title allegations and plaintiff’s assertion that he owned the parcel “in fee simple absolute.” On appeal, the court held that review of the summary-disposition ruling was waived because the order granted relief “for the reasons stated on the record,” defendants filed no written response to the motion, and “without a transcript or any written objections from defendants, we are ‘unable to review [defendants’] objections and the trial court’s reason for the decision.’” The court next held that, even aside from waiver, summary disposition was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(9) because allegations in a complaint “are admitted if not denied in the responsive pleading,” and defendants failed to answer the paragraphs setting out plaintiff’s causes of action. The court also held that defendants’ discovery challenge was waived for the same transcript-related reason and lacked merit because further discovery had no reasonable chance of supporting their position once the allegations were effectively admitted. Finally, the court held that disqualification was not warranted because an assigned judge found there was “absolutely no evidence of any bias or appearance of bias,” and that defendants’ allegations rested on “‘speculation, hearsay, disagreements with’” prior rulings, and “‘ill-contrived conspiracies.’” Affirmed.