Adverse possession; Actual use; Jonkers v Summit Twp; Exclusive possession; Open & notorious; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Adverse & hostile; Continuous for the 15-year statutory period; Dummer v US Gypsum Co

Holding that defendants/counterplaintiffs-the Berghorsts established all the elements of adverse possession, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ruling that the property in dispute belonged to them. Plaintiff/counterdefendant-Flegel and defendants in the second of these consolidated cases own lots within an area known as Pine River Hills (the court referred to them as the lot owners). “The Berghorsts own a parcel of land located west of Pine River Hills.” This dispute involved the ownership of land located west of a creek (Coe Creek) “and inside the calculated dimensions of the Pine River Hills plat.” The court found that the evidence showed “the Berghorsts and their guests physically used the land in a way that was reasonable on the basis of” its character, which was “mostly undeveloped woodlands and Coe Creek,” a 10- to 20-foot-wide stream. Thus, “with some exceptions, all the property owners generally used the area for leisure and recreational activities . . . .” Testimony also showed “that the Berghorsts and their guests used the areas west of the creek on Lots 16, 17, and 18 for activities such as hiking, hunting, and fishing ever since” the property was purchased in 1964. The court concluded the “trial court did not clearly err in finding actual use of the disputed lands.” Further, it did not err in “concluding that the Berghorsts had occupied the disputed property to the exclusion of others, especially considering the property’s character[.]” In addition to the posting of no trespassing signs, “the driveway leading to the Berghorst cabin was protected by a cable, and the property’s northern and southern borders had fences.” The court also determined “the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the Berhorsts’ use of the property west of the creek for fishing, hunting and gathering was open and visible to the Pine River Hills landowners.” Among other things, a member of the family “placed a culvert on Lot 17 to help with drainage” and constructed “a permanent tree stand on Lot 18[.]” As to the adverse and hostile element, significant testimony was presented showing “that the Berghorsts and their guests believed that the property extended to the middle of Coe Creek, and that they treated the creek as the boundary between their property and Pine River Hills.” Finally, the court concluded that their “use of the property west of the Coe Creek for recreational activities was continuous for at least 15 years.”