Madhavan v. Sucher
Court of Appeals of Michigan
306 N.W. 2d 481 (1981)
Relevant factsFree
Sucher (defendant) agreed to convey Madhavan (plaintiff) marketable title to a property "subject to the existing building and use restrictions, easements, and zoning ordinances, if any," but a survey revealed an undisclosed drainage easement encroaching on the residence's patio, which the title insurance company refused to insure against; Madhavan refused to close and sued to recover his $3,000 deposit, and the district court granted him summary judgment, prompting Sucher's appeal.
IssueFree
Whether title is considered unmarketable if a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances would refuse to accept title in the ordinary course of business.
Related cases
Tenet Healthsystem Surgical v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District426 F.3d 738 (2005)Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enters., Ltd.688 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984)Fenton v. Quaboag Country Club233 N.E.2d 216 (1968)In re Weisman5 F.3d 417 (1993)Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Taylor318 So. 2d 203 (1975)