*

The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern

District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0321n.06

Filed: May 5, 2006

No. 05-1461

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TRES GALANES CORPORATION and

DOS MAS GALANES CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

v.

VICTOR CORDOBA, YVONNE

CORDOBA, and EL ZOCALO,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellants.

THE CITY OF DETROIT and UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

OPINION

BEFORE: BOGGS, Chief Judge, SUTTON, Circuit Judge, and SCHWARZER,*

 Senior

District Judge

WILLIAM W SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. Tres Galanes Corporation and Dos

Mas Galanes Corporation (collectively, “Tres Galanes”) brought this action against Victor Cordoba,

Yvonne Cordoba, and El Zocalo, Inc. (collectively, “Cordoba”) to quiet title to certain disputed

property. The United States, originally a party as a tax lienholder, removed the action from state

court. The district court granted Tres Galanes’s motion for summary adjudication of the quiet title
No. 05-1461

Tres Galanes v. Cordoba

-2-

claim (Count 1) and remanded the remaining claims for lack of federal jurisdiction. We have

jurisdiction of Cordoba’s appeal and affirm. 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them here only to the extent

necessary for our decision. The district court held Cordoba’s interest in the disputed property to be

a fee simple with a reverter interest in the City of Detroit (“City of Detroit”). Reverter depended

upon whether Cordoba met the terms of a development agreement. The district court, based upon

a prior state court decision, held that Cordoba’s development of the property did not satisfy the

agreement and that Cordoba had defaulted. As a result, ownership of the property reverted to

Detroit, which then had authority to convey it to Tres Galanes. 

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary adjudication. Tucker v. Union of

Needletrades, 407 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2005). To prevail in a quiet title action on summary

judgment, defendants must be able to claim title superior to that of the plaintiffs with the district

court construing all reasonable inferences in the defendants’ favor. See Beulah Hoagland Appleton

Qualified Personal Residence Trust v. Emmet County Rd. Comm’n, 600 N.W.2d 698, 700 (Mich.

Ct. App. 1999). 

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the development agreement “provided that, in the

event of [Cordoba’s] default, the property would revert to [Detroit].” Cordoba v. City of Detroit, No.

221319, 2001 WL 1009308, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2001), cert. denied, 646 N.W.2d 470

(Mich. 2002). The property’s conveyance depended upon Detroit’s “determination that the

[development] project was substantially complete.” Id. Viewing the facts in the light most

favorable to Cordoba, the Court of Appeals held that “we do not believe that reasonable minds could
No. 05-1461

Tres Galanes v. Cordoba

-3-

conclude that [Detroit] received ‘essentially’ what it was entitled to under the [development

agreement] contract” and that Cordoba “fail[ed] to create a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether [he] substantially completed his contractual obligation.” Id. at 2. Based upon the state

court’s decision, Cordoba is estopped from claiming an interest in the property under the

development agreement. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 336 n. 23 (1979) (“[T]he

whole premise of collateral estoppel is that once an issue has been resolved in a prior proceeding,

there is no further factfinding function to be performed.”); see also Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v.

Young, 824 F.2d 512, 515 (6th Cir. 1987). 

To the extent Cordoba’s claim is based on the“Release of Reverter Interest,” executed by

Henry Hagood, it is sufficient to note that Hagood lacked authority to provide such a release. Under

the Detroit City Code, only the Detroit City Council has authority to transfer an interest in municipal

land. Detroit City Code art. 5, § 18-5-5(a). The City Council did not authorize the conveyance of

the disputed property to Cordoba. 

Finally, inasmuch as Mr. Cordoba’s interest in the property was extinguished when the

property reverted to Detroit, Mrs. Cordoba holds no dower interest in the property.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in all respects.