Where counterclaims have been brought in a dispute over the potential sale of property, the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition should be allowed as to the slander of title counterclaims but denied as to an abuse of process counterclaim.
“The instant action is before this Court on Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition as to Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint. …
“This matter involves a dispute over the potential sale of property located at 35046 Woodard Avenue in Birmingham Michigan (the ‘Property’). Defendant Water Tower Properties of Birmingham Michigan, LLC (‘Water Tower’) is the owner of the Property. The Property was put up for sale and marketed by Scott Marcus (‘Marcus’) of RSM Development & Management (‘RSM’) in early 2025. At issue in this Motion is Water Tower’s Counterclaim against the Plaintiff Nelson Ventures LLC (the ‘Plaintiff’ or ‘Nelson Ventures’) and Third-Party Complaint against Linden Nelson (‘Nelson’) alleging Statutory Slander of Title (Count I); Common Law Slander of Title (Count II); Tortious Interference with a Contract (Count III); Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Expectancy or Advantage (Count IV); Abuse of Process (Count V); Action to Quiet Title (Count VI of Counterclaim only); and Declaratory Judgment (Count VII of Counterclaim only).
“At stake in this Motion is whether Water Tower has established that the Lis Pendens filed by Nelson Ventures was invalid? Because there is no genuine issue of material fact that filing the Lis Pendens was warranted, summary disposition is properly granted as to the Statutory Slander of Title (Count I) and Common Law Slander of Title (Count II).
“Additionally at stake in this Motion is whether Water Tower has shown a breach of its alleged contracts with a third-party buyer or its mortgage lender? Because the answer is ‘no,’ Water Tower cannot demonstrate the essential elements of a claim for Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship and summary disposition is proper as to Count III.
“Further at stake is whether Water Tower can establish the doing of a lawful act with malice and unjustified in law where the Lis Pendens was valid? Because the answer is ‘no,’ summary disposition is proper as to Count IV (Tortious Interference with Business Relationships).
“Also at stake is whether Water Tower has demonstrated that an issue of fact exists as to an ulterior motive in the use of discovery and filing the Lis Pendens? Because the answer is ‘yes,’ summary disposition is denied as to the Abuse of Process claim (Count V). …
“Based on the foregoing Opinion, this Court hereby GRANTS Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition as to Counts I-IV, DENIES the Motion as to Count V (Abuse of Process), and DISMISSES Counts VI and VII as MOOT.”