Adverse possession; MCL 600.5801(4); Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC; Hostility element; Wengel v Wengel; Acquiescence for statutory period; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Damages on a trespass claim; Attorney fees for pro se attorney; MCL 600.2591; FMB-First MI Bank v Bailey; Requests to admit sanctions; MCR 2.313(C)(2); Waiver; Braverman v Granger

The court held that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to the “hostility” element of adverse possession and failed to resolve a key factual dispute bearing on accrual, requiring vacatur of the quiet-title judgment and remand for additional findings. But it affirmed the rejection of acquiescence and the denial of trespass damages and attorney fees sought by the pro se attorney-owner plaintiff. The dispute concerned a roughly 20-by-10-foot area along neighboring parcels where defendant claimed ownership based on long-term encroachment that included fencing and related improvements. The trial court quieted title in favor of plaintiff. It found defendant failed to prove adverse possession or acquiescence, that there was a trespass but awarded zero damages, and denied post-trial motions for damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court noted that adverse possession requires “actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and uninterrupted” possession for 15 years, and that “hostile” use is “inconsistent with the right of the owner, without permission asked or given” – it does not relate to the owner’s hostility toward the possessor. The court concluded the trial court erred by starting the 15-year clock based on a subsequent owner’s objection in 6/13 and by not determining when the allegedly encroaching fence was constructed, which would establish hostility and start the 15-year period. It therefore vacated the adverse-possession ruling and quiet-title judgment and remanded for factual findings on the existing record (or additional proceedings in the trial court’s discretion). The court affirmed rejection of defendant’s acquiescence claim because a prior owner’s testimony supported that he did not accept the purported boundary line. It also affirmed denial of (1) trespass damages for lack of admitted evidentiary support and (2) attorney fees, holding a pro se litigant, even if a licensed attorney, does not “incur” attorney fees under MCL 600.2591 and plaintiff could not recover fees for representing a predecessor when she repeatedly stated she did not represent him. It further concluded sanctions were unwarranted because defendant had reasonable grounds to believe she might prevail. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.