Trespass & nuisance claims; Waiver; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5805(2); Accrual; Whether summary disposition was premature; Quiet title; Acquiescence to a boundary line for the statutory period; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Kipka v Fountain

The court concluded that plaintiff waived any challenge to the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendants on her trespass and nuisance claims by conceding to that ruling. And even if she had not, it found the claims failed on the merits. It also held that the trial court did not err in determining that defendants established acquiescence for the statutory period over a fence post and by quieting title in their favor. But while it affirmed, it also remanded “for clarification to ensure the trial court’s judgment” was consistent with the court’s opinion, and retained jurisdiction. The parties are next-door neighbors. The court noted after the trial court’s oral ruling that included dismissal of the trespass and nuisance claims, “plaintiff moved for reconsideration. But plaintiff did not seek reconsideration of the dismissal of her trespass and nuisance claims. Rather,” she specifically stated in writing that she conceded to the ruling as to those claims. Thus, she “waived appellate review of any claim of error.” Further, the court held that her trespass claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in MCL 600.5805(2). And summary disposition of her nuisance claim was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because she did not “establish any genuine issue of material fact about whether defendants’ installation of the post caused the water damage in her basement.” As to the trial court’s quiet title ruling, a “chain link fence existed when plaintiff bought her home in 1999, it has remained there ever since, and plaintiff and defendants each maintained their property on each side of the fence. Because the parties treated the fence line as a property line for more than 15 years, defendants established acquiescence to the fence as a boundary.” Additionally, the evidence showed that the post had “been connected to the chain link fence for more than 15 years, and that plaintiff acquiesced to any property rights over the land on which the post sits.” However, the trial court wrote in its final order and judgment “that it was quieting title in defendants’ favor ‘to the disputed property adjacent to their driveway including the gate and fence post.’ To the extent” its order related to the gate and fence post, the court affirmed. “But the order’s reference to disputed property next to the driveway ‘including the gate and fence post’ suggests a broader ruling[,]” and the court found this required remand.