1. Case Name, Citation and Court
Riashi v. Frangedakis, Michigan Court of Appeals 1998 [Unpublished]
2. Key Facts
A. Plaintiff (Riashi) filed an instant action for his daughter’s interest in a certain piece of real estate and for declaration of an equitable mortgage. Defendant (Frangedakis) now appeals.
B. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in declaring an equitable mortgage for the property and what determines the terms of an equitable mortgage. Defendant proclaims that the plaintiff failed to meet his heavy burden and did not produce any evidence regarding to the terms and conditions of the Mortgage.
C. The defendant believed the real estate was a gift given to her by the plaintiff, however continued to pay a $500 remuneration for the real estate as well as an $8,500 lump sum for an increase in equity interest for the defendant.
D. The plaintiff offered to pay for the property in cash so that the defendant would not have to pay high interest rates and excessive fees and costs associated with a mortgage.
3. Issue Is there any evidence to indicate that the plaintiff, as a gift, gave the piece of real estate to the defendant?
4 Decision and Applicable Substantive Law
The court determined that there was no suggestion by either party at the time the deed was executed that this was to be a gift. This court reviewed a trial court’s declaration of an equitable mortgage under Schultz v Schultz, 117 Mich App 454, 457-458; 324 NW2d 48 (1982).
5 Reasoning
A. The plaintiff would not have placed his name on the deed at all if his intentions were to provide defendant with the real estate as a pure gift. Instead, they were convinced that he included his name on the deed to ensure that he maintained ownership