Quiet title action; Acquiescence to a boundary line for the statutory period; Killips v Mannisto

Concluding that the trial court did not err in its factual findings and that those findings supported its ruling that “plaintiff and defendants’ predecessors in title acquiesced to the northern and western extended property lines of plaintiff’s parcel[,]” the court affirmed the order determining title in her favor as to both boundaries. Defendants’ 79-acre parcel surrounds plaintiff’s one-acre parcel on three sides. She occupies an area extending “approximately 43 feet beyond the legally-described boundary lines on both the northern and western boundaries of her parcel.” She contended “she had exercised dominion and control over these areas for” over 15 years. As to the northern boundary, she offered documentary evidence in support of her summary disposition motion showing she had occupied the “disputed area since at least 1989 by locating a wood shed, clothes line, and a play house on this area, had used the area with her family for recreation from at least 1998, and that defendants’ predecessors in title treated the northern boundary of the northern disputed area as the true property line, just as plaintiff had.” While defendants disagreed, they did not present documentary evidence creating a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff and their “predecessors in title treated the northern boundary of the disputed area as the boundary for at least 15 years.” Their claim that she “leased hunting rights on the 79 acres does not negate the fact that defendants’ predecessors in title treated the extended northern boundary as the true boundary of plaintiff’s parcel.” Thus, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff summary disposition as to the northern boundary. The court also concluded that photos and witness testimony supported the trial court’s “finding that plaintiff and defendants’ predecessors in title treated the mowed line as the true boundary line in the western disputed area, and that the acquiescence to that boundary began at least as early as 1999. There was no evidence of any objection to plaintiff’s claim to the disputed area until after defendants purchased the 79-acre parcel in 2017, which occurred well after the 15-year statutory period for acquiescence had occurred.” Thus, the trial court did not err as to this boundary either.