In 2012, a Michigan woman put her Troy home in her name and that of a woman who regarded her as a grandmother; 14 years later, an appeals court upheld the survivorship deed over her daughter's challenge

A Michigan appeals court has upheld a survivorship deed signed 14 years ago, ruling that a house in Troy belongs to a woman who was considered a grandmother by the owner, rather than the owner's only legal heir. A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision that granted partial summary disposition in favour of Jessica Rae Harless. The legal challenge was brought by Anita Lanctot, who served as the personal representative of the estate of her late mother, Shirley Ann Page. The dispute focused on a single-family home at 212 Hickory Drive in Troy, Michigan. On 30 November 2012, Page signed and recorded a quitclaim deed that transferred the property from her sole ownership into the names of herself and Harless. Although Harless was not related to Page by blood or law, court records state that she considered Page her grandmother. After Page died on 12 September 2023, Lanctot filed a lawsuit in the Oakland Circuit Court to claim the property for her mother's estate.Challenge over property languageLanctot filed her civil lawsuit on 31 July 2024. Her claims included quiet title, deed reformation, statutory conversion, rescission, and identity theft. She argued that her mother's 2012 deed did not legally create a joint tenancy because it did not specifically use the word "joint" or "jointly". Under Michigan property law, when a property is transferred to two or more people, the law generally assumes they hold it as tenants in common rather than as joint tenants, unless the deed clearly states otherwise. Under a tenancy in common, a deceased owner's share passes to their heirs or estate. Under a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, the property automatically passes to the surviving owner named in the deed. Lanctot argued that because the deed did not include the word "joint", it created only a tenancy in common. This would mean that Page's half of the property should pass to Lanctot as her mother's only legal heir. However, the main wording in Page's 2012 quitclaim deed stated that she transferred the house to herself and Harless "not as tenants in common, but with full rights of survivorship." On 6 June 2025, the Oakland Circuit Court granted partial summary disposition in favour of Harless on the quiet title and deed reformation claims. The judge ruled that clearly stating the right of survivorship was enough to create a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship. On 1 July 2025, the trial court transferred the remaining claims that did not concern ownership of the property to the district court and closed the circuit court case file. Lanctot then appealed the decision.Appeals court focus on grantor intentIn an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Lanctot's arguments and upheld the trial court's decision. The three-judge panel included Chief Judge Michael F. Gadola, Judge Colleen A. O'Brien, and Judge Philip P. Mariani. The court explained that Michigan law does not require specific words or phrases to create a joint tenancy. Instead, the main question is whether the person transferring the property clearly expressed an intention to give the surviving owner the right to keep it after their death. "The statute does not require any specific words to create a joint tenancy; however, the statute does require that the grantor's intent be clearly expressed in the instrument," the court stated in its ruling, citing section 554.44 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The judges also addressed Lanctot's reliance on earlier court decisions, including the 1945 Michigan Supreme Court case Taylor v Taylor. They explained that earlier rulings focused on the property owner's intention, not simply on the exact words used. In Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that using the word "jointly" in an opening paragraph did not automatically create a joint tenancy when the later paragraphs failed to make the owner's intention clear. The appeals court also referred to the 1925 Michigan Supreme Court case Kemp v Sutton. In that case, the state Supreme Court found that a testator had created a valid joint tenancy even though the document did not include what the court called the "talismanic words 'this is a joint tenancy.'"Plain meaning of the deedThe appeals court concluded that Page's choice of words made her intention for the home after her death clear. "Page used the terms 'not as tenants in common' and 'full rights of survivorship' in the deed, which, by their plain language, created a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship," the panel wrote. "If there was any uncertainty of intent when analyzing the deed language, the phrase 'not as tenants in common' clearly rebuts the presumption that the grantor intended to create a tenancy in common." The court found that the deed's wording was clear on its face. As a result, there was no genuine dispute over an important fact that would require a full trial or additional evidence. "The trial court did not need to go beyond the plain language of the deed to determine that Page's intent was to create a joint tenancy," the judges concluded. The ruling leaves Harless as the sole legal owner of the Troy home.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.