Quiet-title action; MCL 600.2932(1); MCR 3.411(F); Easement; “Finding of title”; Value of improvements; Bad faith; Contractual indemnification; Equitable indemnification

The court held that the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs had no enforceable easement constituted a “finding of title” triggering MCR 3.411(F), that plaintiffs did not make the improvements in bad faith, and that defendants were not entitled to contractual or equitable indemnification from the former owners. Plaintiffs and the former owners of defendants’ lakefront property verbally agreed to construct and share a boardwalk and dock, mistakenly believing the improvements straddled the property line when they were actually located entirely on the former owners’ property. After defendants purchased the property, a dispute arose over plaintiffs’ continued use. The trial court found no enforceable easement because the agreement was not written, but awarded plaintiffs $55,750 under MCR 3.411(F) for their contribution to the property’s increased value. On appeal, defendants argued that the no-easement determination was not a “finding of title” under the rule. The court disagreed. Because defendants had to possess title to the property allegedly encumbered by the easement and expressly counterclaimed to quiet title, “the trial court necessarily made a finding of full title in defendants’ favor before determining no enforceable easement existed. That finding was sufficient to trigger MCR 3.411(F)’s provision.” The court also upheld the finding that plaintiffs acted without bad faith. They and the former owners mutually constructed and maintained the improvements, defendants initially permitted their continued use and even assisted with maintenance, and “[w]e see nothing in the record indicating a lack of good faith in these actions by plaintiffs.” Defendants’ contractual-indemnification claim likewise failed because “it is inconsistent to argue on the one hand that plaintiffs did not have an easement for want of a written document and on the other hand to claim a right to indemnity for failing to disclose a phantom easement.” Their equitable-indemnification theory also failed where the former owners disclosed that the dock was shared and defendants knew of the arrangement when purchasing the property. Affirmed.