Quiet title; Whether a deed created a joint tenancy; MCL 554.44; Taylor v Taylor; Kemp v Sutton; Wengel v Wengel; Schultz v Brohl; Personal representative (PR)

Holding that the deed language was unambiguous such that it established the decedent’s (Page) intent to create a joint tenancy, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants on plaintiff-estate’s quiet title and deed reformation claims. The estate’s PR is the only heir of the estate and was Page’s daughter. One of the defendants (Jessica), while not related to Page, regarded her as her grandmother. Over a decade before her death, Page executed the quit claim deed at issue in favor of herself and Jessica “not as tenants in common, but with full rights of survivorship.” Plaintiff sought reformation of the deed and quiet title to the property in question on the basis “the deed did not create a joint tenancy and” instead only created a tenancy in common. Plaintiff argued on appeal that “the term ‘joint’ is required to overcome the presumption of a tenancy in common, but” the court concluded case law showed that “only a clear demonstration of intent to create a joint tenancy is required.” Pursuant to Wengel, “a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship is created by express language directly referencing words of survivorship . . . .” And in Schultz, the Michigan “Supreme Court held that a joint tenancy was created, with no use of the terms ‘joint’ or ‘jointly,’ by the survivorship language, ‘to them and the survivor of them.’ Page used the terms ‘not as tenants in common’ and ‘full rights of survivorship’ in the deed, which, by their plain language, created a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. If there was any uncertainty of intent when analyzing the deed language, the phrase ‘not as tenants in common’ clearly rebuts the presumption that the grantor intended to create a tenancy in common.” The court found there was “no genuine issue of material fact that required a trial.”