Listen to this article
A law firm should not have been awarded summary judgment, as there is a question of fact whether the firm was the proximate cause of a client’s loss of title to disputed property, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished decision.
In 2008, the defendant law firm represented the plaintiff in a quiet-title case involving a parcel of land upon which a golf course was being built that overlapped with the plaintiff’s property. After some limited communications with the city and exploration of the dispute, the firm opined that the plaintiff had no claim to prevent or delay the construction of the golf course on its property.
In a 2019 appeal, the Court of Appeals stated that the plaintiff no longer could pursue a timely claim to recover or protect their property interest but stated that “any error on counsel’s part may be remedied monetarily through a malpractice action.” On remand, the trial court allowed the firm’s motion for summary disposition.
“[The plaintiff] claims the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We agree,” the Court of Appeals wrote in a per curiam opinion.
“There is a question of fact regarding proximate cause. While [the defendant] focuses on this Court’s determination [the plaintiff] filed its quiet-title action in 2011, after construction was complete, it ignores its actions before 2011. … Construction began in September 2008 when [the defendant] represented [the plaintiff] and initially asserted [the plaintiff’s] claim to the disputed parcel,” the Court of Appeals stated.
“While [the defendant] is correct after its termination it was not the cause of [the plaintiff’s] harm, the equity issues the Berrien Circuit Court and this Court cite began while [the defendant] represented [the plaintiff]. There is a question of fact whether [the defendant] was the proximate cause of [the plaintiff’s] loss of title to the disputed property. As such, the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition,” the Court of Appeals concluded.
The nine-page decision is New Products Corp. v. Butzel Long; MiLW No. 08-110291.
