Quiet title; Acquiescence; Statutory 15-year period; Tacking; Privity; Adverse possession

The court rejected the claims that defendants “could establish entitlement to the property through the doctrines of acquiescence and adverse possession, and that” they should have been granted summary disposition instead of plaintiff. The dispute concerned “the ownership of a strip of land between the parties’ respective properties.” The court noted that all “three parcels were originally owned by” nonparties-W and M. Acquiescence requires “evidence that parties treated a particular boundary line as the property line” and it has to “be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” Defendants relied “on the actions of their predecessors in order to establish acquiescence for the applicable statutory 15-year period.” The court’s “review of both documents indicate that there are no material contradictions between” M’s son’s (L) “statements in the affidavit and his statements in the telephone transcript. Assuming arguendo that the telephone transcript constitutes substantively admissible evidence under MCR 2.116(C)(10), it does not create a genuine factual dispute sufficient to defeat summary disposition when compared to the sworn affidavit testimony presented by plaintiff. Both documents consistently reflect that [L] maintained and used the land between the properties for family reasons, with no intention to claim ownership or alter boundaries, and with an understanding and respect for the legal property lines. The affidavit provides a more general overview, while the transcript adds detail about [L’s] actions and motivations. Minor differences in detail, such as whether [L] had [M’s] explicit permission to mow the lawn, do not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether [L] acquiesced to a new boundary line between the properties.” Defendants’ argument to the contrary lacked merit. They also could not “establish entitlement to the property through adverse possession.” Defendants purchased their property in 11/13, “providing only 10 years of possession before this litigation commenced in 2023. This falls short of the required 15-year statutory period required for a claim of adverse possession.” To remedy the “deficiency, defendants must successfully ‘tack’ [L’s] prior use onto their own possession period” and they could not “establish the required privity with [L]. [His] affidavit does not indicate that he had any interaction or conversation with defendants prior to closing. Indeed, the record contains no evidence that there was any communication between defendants and [L] regarding boundaries. The warranty deed from [L] to defendants likewise contains no reference to any land other than the 1.01-acre parcel as originally surveyed. Without either inclusion of the disputed property in the deed or parol references at the time of conveyance, no privity exists to support tacking.” Affirmed.