Holding that plaintiff established title, and that defendants did not show superior title, the court affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff in this quiet title action under MCL 600.2932(1). A survey (the Kennedy Survey) she had done in preparation for building a home on her vacant property revealed possible encroachments onto it by defendants. When she filed suit, they “counterclaimed for quiet title, and alternatively claimed that they had acquired the disputed property through adverse possession, or had acquired a prescriptive easement for” its continued use. They also had a survey (the White Survey) done, which had two lines depicting the boundary; one “was labeled ‘S. line sec. 4/N. line of sec. 9 . . . .’” The “Surveyor’s Note” referred to this line as the “south line of section 4,” which was how the court referenced it. The “other line was labeled the ‘line of occupation.’ If the boundary of the defendants’ property was the ‘south line of section 4,’ then there were encroachments onto plaintiff’s property, but if the boundary was the ‘line of occupation,’ then all of the alleged encroachments were actually on” their property. However, the court noted that “the line of occupation was not determined with reference to any recording of land. More importantly, the line of occupation conflicts with defendants’ recorded deed.” Their property measured from the south line of section 4 conformed with the dimensions of their property as reflected in their deed, while their property measured from the line of occupation did not. “This fact, combined with the fact that the south line of section 4 was measured by reference to a recording of property (plaintiff’s deed) while the line of occupation was not,” led the court to determine “that no reasonable juror could find that the non-recorded ‘line of occupation’ on the White Survey was the true boundary line of defendants’ property. Thus, based on (1) the filing of plaintiff’s deed and (2) the Kennedy and White Surveys,” no question of material fact existed that she had title to the disputed property. Further, “the 15 years necessary for defendants to establish a claim of either adverse possession or a prescriptive easement” as to any of the encroachments had not elapsed. And because they could not establish privity of estate, they could not “tack on the possessory period of their predecessors in interest” to satisfy the 15-year requirement.