case of title. If the plaintiff[ ] make[s] out a prima facie case, the defendant ] then ha[s] the burden of proving superior right or title in themselves.” Beulah Hoagland Appleton Qualified Pers. Residence Trust v. Emmet Cnty. Rd. Comm’n, 236 Mich. App. 546, 600 N.W.2d 698, 700 (1999). Khadher does not present evidence establishing a superior claim of ownership in the Property. Khadher also proposes that the court use its equitable powers to quiet title based on fraud, deceit, and intentional violations of statutory duties. Although Michigan courts have recognized that an action to quiet title can be a remedy for fraud, there is no actionable fraud to remedy here. See Missouri v. MWG Prop. Consultants, No. 04-425782-CH, 2008 Mich.App. LEXIS 1232, at *5-6 (Mich. Ct.App. June 12, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Even if intentional violations of statutory
holding that a plaintiffs attempt to quiet title failed because the plaintiff could not furnish competent evidence that the description in the deed includes any or all of the real estate which is admitted by the parties to be the subject of controversy holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims holding action equivalent to quiet title over navigable waters regulated and controlled by state is form of prohibited relief recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud