Legal Opinion · Dissent

Havens v. Schoen

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 19, 1981No. Docket 50022Published

1DissentMackenzie, J.

I respectfully dissent. The deed was recorded with the knowledge and assent of the grantor, which creates a presumption of delivery. See Schmidt v Jennings, 359 Mich 376, 383; 102 NW2d 589 (1960), Reed v Mack, 344 Mich 391, 397; 73 NW2d 917 (1955). Crucial evidence was conflicting and I would disagree that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous.

In Reed v Mack, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that there had been delivery where the grantor defendant, who had owned the property with her husband, recorded a deed conveying a property jointly to herself and the two other…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Holmes v. McDonaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Gibson v. DymonMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Alexander v. American Bible SocietyIllinois Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Schmidt v. JenningsMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Camp v. Guaranty Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API