Quiet title; Chain of title & deed interpretation; Race-notice; MCL 565.29; Michigan Dep’t of Natural Res v Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc; Easement; Access easement appurtenant v easement in gross; Penrose v McCullough; Slander of title; Malice under MCL 565.108; Wells Fargo Bank v Country Place Condo Ass’n; Trespass; Exclusive possession; Terlecki v Stewart

The court held that title to the subject property was properly quieted in defendant-Kano because, when the 2013 deed was read together with the incorporated addenda and related documents, the property was never conveyed to a nonparty referred to as the GWCDC. Further, the neighboring property remained subject to an access easement benefiting the subject property. The dispute concerned two adjoining parcels, the “subject property” at 6437 East Palmer and the “neighboring property” at 1625 East Grand Boulevard, both originally acquired by defendant-Simonetta’s father, Antonio, in 1996, after which competing chains of title developed from later deeds, addenda, and trust transfers. The trial court quieted title to the subject property in Kano and to the neighboring property in appellant, subject to an access easement. On appeal, the court held that “the plain language of” the 2013 deed “included ‘Parcel 1 and 2’” (the subject property and the neighboring property), but that the deed also “expressly references the first addendum[.]” Thus, the deed had to be read with the incorporated documents because a deed “must be read as a whole in order to ascertain the grantor’s intent” and incorporated writings “should be read together.” The court next held that the first and second addenda made clear the intended “gift” was only “1625 E. Grand Blvd” (parcel ID 15000591), so “the subject property was never conveyed to the GWCDC.” It also held that the access easement survived because the easement expressly related to ingress and egress “to and from the” subject property and, since “Michigan law favors easements appurtenant,” it ran with the land rather than belonging personally to Antonio. Finally, the court held that defendant-OBI was entitled to summary disposition on the slander of title claim because there was no evidence it acted with malice, and that the trespass claim failed because appellant had no right to exclusive possession of the subject property. Affirmed.