Nicole Vedrode v. Mutee H Abdole
353542
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Vedrode bought a vacant parcel (Jan 2012) and separately purchased a mobile home (Dec 2011) but did not record its title; she had the home moved onto the land, placed over a basement, removed wheels/hitches, and connected utilities.
- Vedrode added a garage and porch attached to the home, lived in the mobile home, paid to site and utility it, and paid property taxes (assessment included the home).
- The parcel was foreclosed for unpaid taxes and sold at a September 6, 2018 tax-auction; Abdole bought the real property (quitclaim deed omitted specific mention of the mobile home).
- Vedrode was evicted pursuant to consent judgment and later district-court eviction order; after eviction Abdole changed locks and occupied/altered the interior.
- Vedrode sued for statutory conversion (MCL 600.2919a) and violation of the anti-lockout statute (MCL 600.2918), arguing the mobile home remained her personal property because she never filed an affidavit of affixture under the MHCA (MCL 125.2330i).
- The trial court found the mobile home was a fixture (under MHCA definition and common-law fixture test), granted judgment for Abdole; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Vedrode's Argument | Abdole's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 125.2330i makes the affidavit-of-affixture procedure the exclusive means to convert a titled mobile home into real property | Filing the affidavit is mandatory; without it the mobile home remains titled personal property and did not pass in the tax sale | The affidavit procedure is optional; a mobile home can become a fixture under common-law tests even if no affidavit was filed | Affidavit procedure is optional; statute does not abrogate common-law fixture doctrine and does not preclude treating a mobile home as a fixture absent the filing |
| Whether the mobile home was a fixture | The owner’s intent to keep the home personal (no affidavit, purposely non‑permanent garage/porch) means it remained personalty | Objective facts (wheels removed, attached to basement, utilities, attached garage/porch, residence) show annexation, adaptation, and intent to make it permanent | The objective factors satisfied the three‑part common‑law fixture test; the mobile home was a fixture and became part of the realty |
| Whether Vedrode proved statutory conversion of personal property | The mobile home remained Vedrode’s titled personal property and Abdole converted it by changing locks and altering interior | Because the home was a fixture that passed with the land, it was not personal property and no conversion occurred | Conversion claim failed: a fixture is part of real property, so Vedrode had no personal-property title to convert |
| Whether the anti-lockout statute was violated by changing locks/retaining possession | Changing locks and denying access unlawfully interfered with Vedrode’s possessory interest | Abdole acted pursuant to a valid eviction/possession judgment and therefore his actions did not unlawfully interfere | No violation: the eviction was carried out under court orders and owner acting pursuant to court order is not liable under the anti-lockout statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne County v. Britton, 454 Mich. 608 (1997) (reaffirming the three‑part common‑law fixture test: annexation, adaptation, and intent)
- Ottaco, Inc. v. Gauze, 226 Mich. App. 646 (1997) (mobile home integrated with realty can become a fixture and transfer by tax deed)
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., Inc. v. Pickrell, 271 Mich. App. 119 (2006) (MHCA § 30i procedure is an optional method to treat a mobile home as part of the real property)
- Aroma Wines & Equipment, Inc. v. Columbian Distribution Servs., Inc., 497 Mich. 337 (2015) (statutory conversion elements and relation to common‑law conversion)
- Sewell v. Clean Cut Management, Inc., 463 Mich. 569 (2001) (district-court eviction orders are conclusive on whether the eviction was proper)