Quiet title; Whether a deed was intended to be an equitable mortgage; Grant v Van Reken

Holding that neither party was entitled to summary disposition in this quiet title action involving a dispute over whether a deed was an equitable mortgage, the court reversed and remanded. The case arose from a loan defendant-Broaden made to third-party defendant-Tinnon, who executed a quitclaim deed (the Broaden Deed) of the property “to Broaden ‘for the full consideration of’ $20,000.” They also executed a document (Exhibit A), which provided that the property would be used as security for $20,000 that would be paid back in about 30 days. After “almost a year without repayment, Broaden recorded the” Deed. Days later, “Tinnon executed a third quitclaim deed of the property to” plaintiff-CKT, which recorded its deed and filed this action. The trial court granted Broaden’s summary disposition motion and denied CKT’s. On appeal, the court noted “CKT’s complaint claimed that the Broaden Deed was an equitable mortgage. Thus, as the moving party seeking summary disposition” Broaden had the initial burden of proof to show that it was not. “By failing to address the equitable-mortgage aspect of CKT’s claim whatsoever, Broaden did not satisfy this burden.” The court further noted that while “CKT did not depose or otherwise provide any testimony from Tinnon” about his intent as “to the Broaden Deed, it did provide documentary evidence in support of its claim that the Broaden Deed was intended to be an equitable mortgage.” It provided Exhibit A, “which explicitly provides that the property ‘will be used as security’ for the $20,000 loan. Broaden’s counsel represented to the trial court that Broaden signed this document. Accordingly, CKT provided sufficient documentary evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Broaden and Tinnon intended the exchange to be a mortgage. Broaden did not submit any affidavits or sworn testimony challenging Exhibit ‘A’ or claiming that she bore no such intent.” Thus, the court found that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition and quieting title in Broaden’s favor.