Background
David Perry sued to quiet title to property located at 8212 East Lantz Street in Detroit. Perry claimed the property was abandoned following the previous owner’s death and that he had acquired legal title by taking possession. Ernesto Losada countered that he was the sole legal owner, submitting a notarized quitclaim deed showing the property had been transferred to him through a trust by the previous owner.
During discovery, Losada served Perry with requests for admissions asking him to concede he had no legal or possessory interest in the property and that Losada was the legal owner. Perry failed to respond. After the trial court granted Losada’s motion to have the admissions deemed admitted and gave Perry 14 additional days to respond, Perry again failed to respond. Losada then moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing no factual dispute existed regarding ownership.
The trial court granted summary disposition in Losada’s favor on October 23, 2024, finding Losada to be the sole legal owner. Perry appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition, but on procedural rather than substantive grounds. The court found that Perry failed to properly present any issue for appellate review, citing MCR 7.212(C)(7), which requires appellants to cite the record and legal authority supporting their arguments.
The court emphasized that Perry merely announced his position that the property was not properly transferred to Losada without pointing to any facts in the record or citing legal authority supporting the claim that possession of abandoned property constitutes legal title. The court found this failure constituted abandonment of Perry’s arguments. The appellate panel noted that an appellant cannot simply make assertions and expect the court to discover and rationalize the basis for the claims.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must cite to the record and provide legal authority for their claims; announcing a position without supporting citation constitutes abandonment of the argument on appeal.
- Failure to respond to discovery requests (requests for admissions) twice, even after being granted additional time, undermines a party’s position in summary judgment motions.
- Michigan courts do not recognize a right to acquire legal title to real property merely by taking possession of property believed to be abandoned without legal authority supporting such a claim.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict appellate procedural requirements in Michigan and demonstrates the serious consequences of inadequate briefing. Perry’s substantive claims about property ownership never reached the merits because he failed to meet the threshold requirement of properly presenting his arguments on appeal. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of connecting arguments to record citations and applicable law.
The decision also highlights how discovery failures—particularly ignoring requests for admissions even after additional time is granted—can result in deemed admissions that substantially weaken a party’s position in subsequent motions practice, leaving an appellant with little to argue at the appellate level.