In Ramos v Bibi, Inc., an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals case, Ramos entered into a land contract for the sale of property to the Wilkinsons. However, the Wilkinson’s down payment check bounced. Ramos started land contract forfeiture proceedings and obtained a judgment. During the redemption period, the Wilkinsons hired Bibi to install a driveway. Again, the Wilkinsons presented Bibi with a check that bounced. After the redemption period expired, Bibi filed a claim of lien under the Construction Lien Act. Ramos file suit to quiet title, Bibi filed a counterclaim for foreclosure of the construction lien, and the parties filed cross motions for summary disposition. The trial court ruled in favor of Ramos and against Bibi, and both appealed.
Regarding the construction lien, the Court of Appeals held that, because the Wilkinsons never paid any part of the purchase price, they never acquired an interest in the property. Thus, they never became an “owner" of the property. A construction lien claimant is entitled to a claim of lien only when it contracts with an owner or lessee of the property. Since the Wilkinsons were never an owner, Bibi was not entitled to a construction lien.
The trial court also erred in dismissing Ramos’ claim for slander of title. Ramos made two demands that Bibi release its lien, but Bibi refused. Failure to discharge an invalid lien after request is evidence of malice sufficient to support a claim for statutory slander of title.