- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

LN REAL ESTATE, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 28, 2017

v No. 333208 Genesee Circuit Court KINGDOM LIVING CHURCH, LC No. 16

- 105381

- CK

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

Appellant.

Before: M URRAY , P .J., and F ORT H OOD and G LEICHER , JJ.

M URRAY , P. J., ( concurring ).

I concur in the analysis and conclusions reached by the majority opinion. However, I write separately to briefly set forth two points related to two of the claims at issue on appeal.

First, with respect to the trial court’s ruling granting summary disposition in favor of LN Real Estate on its slander of title claim, I would agree with i t s argum ent that summary disposition was proper but for the fact that the only published Michigan decision that supports its argument was vacated. Specifically, i n Ruby & Assoc

, PC v Shore Fin Servs , 276 Mich App 110 , 115

- 116 ; 741 NW2d 72 (2007), this Court concl uded that a lis pendens was invalid because the underlying lawsuit which resulted in the filing of th e lis pe ndens only sought money damages and

, therefore

, did not affect the title

, possession

, or interest in the real property as contemplated by MCL 600.2 701. Indeed, the Ruby & Assoc

, PC C ourt cited the only other published decision addressing this issue, Patten Corp v Canadian Lakes Dev Corp , 788 F Supp 975, 978 (WD Mich, 1991), that came to the same conclusion. However, the Supreme Court vacated that part of this Court’s decisio n. See Ruby & Assoc, PC v Shore Fin Servs , 480 Mich 1107 (2008) (“[W] e VACATE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals i nso far as that court concluded that plaintiff’s lis pendens was invalid [

. ] ”). In light of this

, a n d th e other law set forth in the majority opinion, I concur in its resolution of the slander of title claim.

Second, with respect to Kingdom Living Church ’s Elliot

- Larsen Civil Rights Act claim, I concur in the decision to remand to the trial court for it to reconsider LN Real Estate ’s motion for summary disposition under the framework set forth in the majority opinion. This is a reasonable and typical procedure utilized by this Court. That being said

, it is nonetheless quite clear that the church adduced no evidence suggest ing that LN Real Estate acted based upon the church’s- 2

- religious affiliation in making any decision. Indeed, the only decision

- maker involved in the decisions at issue unequivocally testified that he did not know the religious affiliation of the church

, never met the pastor n or anybody else at the church, and was unaware of any animosity between the church’s pastor and the LN representative

. Nor has the church brought forward any evidence

— circumstantial or otherwise

— that would lead a reaso nable juror to conclude that religious animus motivated LN Real Estate to act as it did in not offering a right of first refusal. Thus, although I concur in the remedy to remand, I simply point out to the trial court what it had previously concluded; ther e is no evidence supporting Kingdom Living Church’s Elliott

- Larsen Civil Rights claim.

/s/ Christopher M. Murray