Opinion
361462
10-19-2023
In re ESTATE OF ANNA BRUDEK. v. ALVIN RICE, Defendant-Appellant. JESSICA KALMEWICKI, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ANNA BRUDEK, Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
Oakland Probate Court LC No. 2019-388161-CZ
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Jansen and Cameron, JJ.
Per Curiam.
Defendant appeals by right the trial court's order following a bench trial quieting title to property owned by Anna Brudek, the ward and mother of plaintiff, entered after Brudek transferred half of her interest in the subject property to defendant in 2018. Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case concerns Brudek's transfer of one half interest of real property located on Southfarm Lane in Northville, Michigan to defendant on December 7, 2018. Testimony from trial showed that Brudek and defendant had been in a relationship since 2009. In 2015, Brudek purchased the Southfarm Lane property for $204,000. Although defendant testified at trial that he assisted in that purchase, his name was not on the warranty deed, the mortgage, or the note securing it.
Approximately four months before Brudek transferred her interest to defendant, plaintiff, Brudek's daughter, made an unannounced visit from Chicago, Illinois, where she lives. Upon arriving at the home on Southfarm Lane, plaintiff observed her mother unresponsive on the couch and a strong smell of decay in the house. Plaintiff also observed rotting food and unclean dishes on the sink and counters, rotting food in the refrigerator, and messy rooms with stacked boxes and unorganized household goods.
Plaintiff took her mother to be evaluated by her primary care physician, who subsequently referred Brudek to a geriatric specialist, Dr. Amita Pai. Dr. Pai evaluated Brudek on December 11, 2018, four days after the title transfer to defendant. Dr. Pai diagnosed Brudek with executive dysfunction and mild-to-moderate dementia. This diagnosis was later confirmed after a neurophysiological exam by John O'Leary, a licensed psychologist, in May 2019. Plaintiff also filed a petition for guardianship over Brudek, which was granted on January 30, 2019, on the basis of her "mental deficiency" and "physical illness or disability."
On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed the complaint in the present case. In her complaint, and as relevant here, plaintiff sought to quiet title to the Southfarm Lane property in favor of Brudek on the basis that Brudek lacked the capacity to transfer her interest in it to defendant on December 7, 2018. After a trial that included witnesses for both plaintiff and defendant, the trial court entered an order quieting title and setting aside the deed transfer to defendant. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A trial court's findings of fact following a bench trial are reviewed for clear error. Ladd v Motor City Plastics Co, 303 Mich.App. 83, 92; 842 N.W.2d 388 (2013). "A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Reed-Pratt v Detroit City Clerk, 339 Mich.App. 510, 516-517; 984 N.W.2d 794 (2021). The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Ladd, 303 Mich.App. at 92.
III. ANALYSIS
In his first argument on appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his request, made on the day of trial, for the court to issue document subpoenas to a credit union and medical facility for the purpose of obtaining documents for use at trial. The trial court denied the request as untimely. On appeal, defendant offers this Court with no authority for his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sign the requested subpoenas that were sought on the day trial was to begin. Defendant claims the records sought were critical to the issue of Brudek's cognitive capacity, but cites neither the court rules regarding discovery nor any relevant caselaw supporting his position. "It is not sufficient for a party simply to announce a position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority either to sustain or reject his position." ER Drugs v Dep't of Health and Human Servs, 341 Mich.App. 133, 146-147; 988 N.W.2d 826 (2022). Defendant has, accordingly, abandoned the issue, and we decline to consider it. Reighard v ESPN, Inc, 341 Mich.App. 526, 545; 991 N.W.2d 803 (2022).
At the time of trial, defendant was representing himself and could not, as a nonlawyer, issue the subpoenas without assistance from the court. See MCR 2.305.
Even if the argument were not abandoned, it lacks merit. The complaint was filed on March 29, 2019, at which point defendant was on notice that Brudek's cognitive capacity was at issue. Under the court's amended scheduling order, defendant had seven months to seek the requested documents. After discovery closed, he had an additional two years before trial began to seek to reopen discovery or otherwise request the documents. By waiting until the day of trial to move the court to issue the subpoenas, defendant created the very appellate issue for which he seeks relief.
Next, defendant argues the trial court erred when it found that Brudek lacked the capacity to transfer her interest in the Southfarm Lane property to defendant on December 7, 2019. Defendant contends that Brudek's actions that day demonstrated she was of sound mind and capable of making the transfer. We disagree.
Persons executing a deed of conveyance must have "sufficient mental capacity to understand the business in which he was engaged, to know and understand the extent and value of his property, and how he wanted to dispose of it, and to keep these facts in his mind long enough to plan and effect the conveyances in question without prompting and interference from others." Persinger v Holst, 248 Mich.App. 499, 503-504; 639 N.W.2d 594 (2001); see also Menhennick Family Trust by Menhennick v Menhennick, 326 Mich.App. 504, 510; 927 N.W.2d 741 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted) ("The test of mental capacity to contract is whether the person in question possesses sufficient mind to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act in which the person is engaged."). "Whether a person was mentally competent is determined by a preponderance of the evidence." Menhennick Family Trust, 326 Mich.App. at 509.
The trial court's finding that Brudek lacked capacity to transfer any interest in the Southfarm property to defendant was amply supported by the evidence. In John O'Leary's report, he noted that Brudek had been undergoing cognitive decline since 2017, when it was noted that she was diagnosed with a "right cerebellar infarct and chronic small vessel ischemic changes," which manifested as "increased attention and memory difficulties." These symptoms appeared to progress throughout 2017 and 2018, culminating with plaintiff's visit to her mother in August 2018. During this visit, plaintiff observed Brudek living in a filthy and disorganized environment, which was out of character for her. Brudek was immediately seen by her physician, who referred her to Dr. Pai for a full evaluation.
Dr. Pai's diagnosis, made only four days after Brudek executed the deed, confirmed that Brudek was suffering from executive dysfunction and mild-to-moderate dementia. Dr. Pai stated that as a result of Brudek's condition, her reasoning and judgment were impaired and she would be vulnerable to undue influence. This diagnosis was further supported by Nadine Hatten, Brudek's guardian ad litem, who recommended that a fiduciary be appointed for her, and by O'Leary, who opined that Brudek was "cognitively impaired" and "require[ed] oversight and supervision from her daughter."
Defendant focuses heavily on the fact that because Brudek was able to fill out and sign the deed, and adequately present identification to the notary public, she had to have been acting with a clear mind that day. Even if these acts by Brudek were strong evidence of her ability to comprehend the importance of her actions that day, a point we strongly question, the argument is undermined by the fact that defendant was not able to complete the deed transfer form by herself. On the address line of the form, where she was to enter her address, it appears she began to write her name again, but then crossed the name out. Further down the form, it is clear that the handwriting changed, and plaintiff testified that the different handwriting belonged to defendant. The trial court also did not clearly err when it rejected the testimony from Sandra and Charles Misukanis, who hosted a party on December 31, 2018, that was attended by Brudek. While their observations of Brudek were relevant, neither individual was a medical professional trained to recognize the signs of dementia, nor did they observe Brudek on the day in question.
In sum, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Brudek lacked sufficient capacity to transfer an interest in the Southfarm property. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it quieted title in favor of Brudek.
Affirmed. Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, may tax costs. MCR 7.219(A).