Equitable mortgage; Equitable lien; Intent to use property as security; Eastbrook Homes, Inc v Department of Treasury; In re Estate of Moukalled; Clean hands doctrine; McFerren v B & B Inv Group; Adequate remedy at law; Unjust enrichment; Benefit from complaining party; Karaus v Bank of NY Mellon; Motion for reconsideration; Abandoned appellate issue; MCR 7.212(C)(5)

The court held that plaintiff failed to state claims for an equitable mortgage or unjust enrichment against defendants after their mortgage was mistakenly paid off and discharged by others. Nonparty-Liberty Title, plaintiff’s issuing agent, tried to obtain a payoff statement for one mortgage (the C mortgage) but received defendants’ payoff information, leading nonparty-University Bank to discharge defendants’ mortgage instead. Defendants alerted Liberty Title, declined a new-loan proposal that required credit disclosures, and offered a private note or mortgage, but plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens and sued before satisfying its title-insurance obligation on the C property. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition and later denied reconsideration after plaintiff paid off the C mortgage. On appeal, the court first declined to consider the effect of that later payment because it occurred after summary disposition, was raised for the first time on reconsideration, and was not included in plaintiff’s questions presented. The court next held that an equitable mortgage was unavailable because such relief generally requires a “clear intent to use an identifiable piece of property as security for a debt,” while plaintiff had “no relationship whatsoever” with defendants, who were “innocent third parties” to others’ errors. It further reasoned plaintiff did not come with clean hands because it sued and recorded a lis pendens before suffering damages, which “closes the door” of equity. The court also held that unjust enrichment failed because plaintiff alleged no benefit it provided to defendants, and any later payment of the C mortgage still did not show “any benefit flowing from plaintiff to defendants.” Affirmed.