Rafael Castilla v. Charlotte L Nicholson, 331351

Background

Plaintiffs (Castilla and Vojcic) sued neighboring landowners alleging the true property line follows a long-standing fence and that they hold fee simple title to a disputed strip along their eastern boundary.
Competing surveys were introduced: a June 11, 2012 survey by Kevin Gingras supporting plaintiffs’ fence line and an October 13, 2014 survey by Christopher Fergus supporting the defendants (Nicholsons et al.).
Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition on a quiet-title claim; the court postponed decision and held an evidentiary hearing at which both surveyors testified.
The trial court made factual findings, credited Fergus over Gingras, adopted the Fergus survey as the correct boundary, and concluded plaintiffs held no title to the disputed strip.
The court entered summary disposition for all defendants; plaintiffs appealed arguing the trial court improperly made credibility determinations and factual findings on a (C)(10) motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was proper on plaintiffs’ quiet-title claim	Plaintiffs argued the evidence (historic fence and Gingras survey) raised no genuine issue of material fact and they were entitled to judgment	Defendants argued competing survey and testimony created a factual dispute supporting judgment for defendants; court credited defendants’ survey	Reversed: trial court erred by making factual findings and weighing witness credibility on a (C)(10) motion; evidentiary hearing was not a permitted immediate trial under the court rules, so summary disposition improper
Whether trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing and resolve credibility on a (C)(10) motion	Plaintiffs argued such credibility determinations are prohibited on (C)(10) and any disputed facts must go to a factfinder	Defendants argued the hearing resolved matters and supported entry of judgment	Held: A court may not weigh credibility or make factual findings on (C)(10); immediate-trial exception under MCR 2.116(I)(3) did not apply here, so the hearing could not substitute for a trial
Whether rulings against plaintiffs as to other defendants were impacted by the earlier erroneous findings	Plaintiffs contended the error infects subsequent rulings dismissing all defendants	Defendants relied on the court’s adopted factual findings to justify dismissals	Held: The error in adopting findings and crediting a survey affected subsequent rulings; reversal and remand required for proper consideration under (C)(10)
Whether court should permit amendment if plaintiffs lose on remand	Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to assert a claim under the Land Division Act if needed	Defendants opposed or did not contest remand outcome	Held: On remand, if plaintiffs lose, the court should consider plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add a Land Division Act claim

Key Cases Cited

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (overview of summary disposition standard and view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 491 Mich. 200 (C)(10) tests factual sufficiency of claim)
Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich. App. 406 (all reasonable inferences drawn for nonmovant)
In re Handelsman, 266 Mich. App. 433 (trial court may not make findings of fact or weigh credibility on a (C)(10) motion)
Mull v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 196 Mich. App. 411 (when reasonable people could differ, factual issues should go to the trier of fact)