e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84673
Opinion Date : 11/17/2025
e-Journal Date : 11/24/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Norton v. Bischer Revocable Family Trust
Practice Area(s) : Real Property
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Redford, Feeney, and Bazzi
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Boundary acquiescence; Killips v Mannisto; Superior property interest; Intentional trespass; Permanent injunction; Exemplary damages; MCL 600.2919(1)(b); Wiggins v City of Burton; Statutory conversion for own use; MCL 600.2919a(1)(a); Branch v Rudolph; Frivolous third-party agency defense; Sanctions; MCL 600.2591; Bradley v Frye-Chaiken

Summary

The court held that the trial court properly found for plaintiffs-landowners on their boundary, trespass, conversion, injunction, and attorney fee claims. Thus, it affirmed the judgment in this consolidated dispute between neighboring riverfront parcel owners. On appeal, the court held that a preponderance of the evidence showed that adjoining owners had long treated the Althea Avenue arc as the line, so “the proper boundary line followed the Althea Avenue arc” and plaintiffs had “a superior property interest in the contested pie shaped parcel.” The court also found that defendants’ extensive excavation, culvert work, grading, and pumping that destroyed the swale and caused water to collect on plaintiffs’ lot were “unauthorized invasions” that “clearly constitute[d] trespasses.” It rejected the argument that good intentions negated liability. It also rejected the third-party agency defense because apparent authority must be “traceable to the principal,” and defendants admitted plaintiffs did nothing to confer such authority. This defense lacked legal merit, supporting the trial court’s frivolousness finding. The court further upheld the finding of statutory conversion where a defendant used commingled soil to fill his own parcel, noting that “good faith, mistake, and ignorance are not defenses.” It further concluded a detailed permanent injunction restoring the swale was proper for intentional, continuous trespasses and was feasible based on trial testimony. Finally, the court held that attorney fees could be awarded as exemplary damages for intentional trespass where a defendant’s trespass was “knowing, intentional and purposeful in achieving a desired outcome” and forced plaintiffs to incur litigation expenses.

Full PDF Opinion