In Re DUKE ESTATE
312 Mich. App. 574
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent executed a quitclaim deed conveying ~40 acres (Inkster Road Property) to his sons Frank and Robert; deed bore a May 14, 2007 date and a notarization block signed by E.A. Labadie. Decedent died September 23, 2009; deed was recorded by Robert in January 2010. Robert later became personal representative and did not list the property in the estate inventory.
- Petitioners (Crystal Clark, Frank Duke, Marega Delizio) sought a determination that the property was estate property and asked the probate court to set aside the quitclaim deed, arguing the notarization was invalid because Labadie was not a notary on May 14, 2007 and thus the deed was fraudulently notarized and unrecordable.
- Robert produced an affidavit from Labadie stating the deed was actually executed on April 13, 2009 (when she allegedly was a notary) and that the May 14, 2007 date on the printed form was erroneous; Labadie’s affidavit was recorded as an affidavit of correction under MCL 565.202.
- The probate court discredited Robert’s evidence and found the deed improperly notarized (because Labadie was not a notary on May 14, 2007), set the deed aside, and held the property belonged to the estate. The court did not make findings on delivery, good faith, or consideration.
- The Court of Appeals reverses and remands: it holds the affidavit under MCL 565.202 cannot correct the date/acknowledgment error because that statutory provision is limited to name-related recording defects, and further holds that a defective acknowledgment does not automatically void a conveyance absent lack of good faith, lack of valuable consideration, or other invalidating circumstances; remand required to take evidence on good faith, consideration, and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of affidavit of correction under MCL 565.202 to fix acknowledgment date | Labadie’s affidavit shows deed executed April 13, 2009; affidavit corrects defect so deed is recordable | MCL 565.202 permits broad correction; deed validly executed in 2009 and recordable | Court: MCL 565.202 is limited to name errors; affidavit insufficient to cure date/acknowledgment defect |
| Effect of defective acknowledgment on validity of conveyance | Defective notarization renders deed void and unrecordable; property remains in estate | Even if acknowledgment defective, the conveyance is valid between parties if executed and delivered | Court: A defective acknowledgment does not automatically void a conveyance; deed cannot be set aside solely on that ground without findings on good faith/consideration or fraud/etc. |
| Whether deed was a gift (no valuable consideration) | Deed’s $1 recitation and circumstances show it was a gift, so MCL 565.604 savings statute inapplicable | Recital of $1 is prima facie consideration; parol evidence can show actual consideration; courts do not automatically treat $1 recital as a gift here | Court: Not resolved; remand required to determine whether there was valuable consideration and good faith under MCL 565.604 |
| Whether probate court properly made credibility/factual findings without further evidence | Petitioners: record supports court’s credibility findings and setting deed aside | Robert: trial court erred by resolving key factual issues (date, delivery, good faith) without full evidentiary development | Court: Because material issues (good faith, consideration, delivery) were not decided, remand for further proceedings is required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kostin, 278 Mich. App. 47 (standard of review for probate court legal conclusions)
- Kerschensteiner v. N. Mich. Land Co., 244 Mich. 403 (defective acknowledgment affects recordability but not validity between parties)
- Turner v. Peoples State Bank, 299 Mich. 438 (acknowledgment not necessary to give validity to conveyance absent fraud/duress)
- In re Rudell Estate, 286 Mich. App. 391 (consideration recital is prima facie but parol evidence admissible to show true consideration)
- Schmalzriedt v. Titsworth, 305 Mich. 109 (savings statute MCL 565.604 allows defective instruments to be enforced in equity when made in good faith and for valuable consideration)
- Takacs v. Takacs, 317 Mich. 72 (examples where $1 recital was treated as a gift based on the record)