Adverse possession; Houston v Mint Group, LLC

Holding that plaintiff’s evidence did not “establish the essential elements of adverse possession, particularly the” required hostile nature of possession, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. The parties are brothers. Defendant owns the property. Plaintiff sued to quiet title to it. He represented himself on appeal. The court first found that he “misconstrues the record by contending that defendant’s motion for summary disposition was granted on the strength of a single affidavit.” He also contended “that summary disposition was improper because he met his burden, as the adverse party, to present evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.” However, simply “meeting the burden to proffer evidence in opposition to a motion for summary disposition does not automatically guarantee that the motion will be denied and that the matter will” go to trial. If the proffered evidence does not create a genuine issue as to “‘any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Plaintiff’s evidence included a sworn affidavit from a neighbor (G) that the court found particularly significant. It was “evident from the context provided by [G] that defendant knew plaintiff was living on the land. This is corroborated by the emails presented by defendant suggesting that he was aware that plaintiff was using the property in 2016. [G’s] affidavit, when considered along with the rest of the evidence submitted to the [trial] court, directly undermines the hostile possession requirement and creates a presumption that defendant permitted plaintiff to occupy the land.” The court found that plaintiff’s other evidence also failed to establish a question of fact as to ownership. The deeds “and defendant’s affidavit entirely contradict plaintiff’s own argument by confirming defendant’s legal right to the property.” Plaintiff’s affidavit only reiterated his claim “that defendant did not properly inherit the property. This claim” was not supported by the “deeds, which indicate that defendant was deeded the property in 1976 and was declared the fee simple owner of [it] in an order to quiet title entered in 1999.” And the photos “showing debris on the land and the invoice for building materials also provide little support for plaintiff’s claim.”