Quiet title; Whether a deed was “delivered”; Wipfler v Wipfler; Taft v Taft

The court held that the deed at issue was delivered and the interest conveyed when plaintiff’s father and defendants’ mother executed it to their trust “and delivered it to themselves as trustees.” Thus, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff, the trustee of the Chakmak Family Trust, summary disposition in this quiet title action. Defendant-Samberg is the trustee of the Joan S. Chakmak Trust. The parties are stepsiblings. In 2002 their parents, Albert and Joan, “established the Albert and Joan Chakmak Trust, of which Albert and Joan were the sole trustees, and executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to the trust.” There was no dispute that they gave the “deed to their attorney and advised their attorney that the deed should be recorded only if Albert and Joan died simultaneously. If the couple did not die simultaneously, the attorney was not to record the deed and the surviving spouse purportedly would receive record title to the property.” In this dispute over ownership of the property, defendants contended “that the 2002 deed did not convey the property to the Albert and Joan Chakmak Trust because the deed was never ‘delivered.’” They were correct that the Michigan “Supreme Court has held that when the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred.” But the court noted that here, “Albert and Joan did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.” Affirmed.