Quiet title; Boundary dispute; Acquiescence for the statutory period; Killips v Mannisto; Property-line evidence; Deed interpretation; Sackett v Atyeo; Tacit or overt boundary agreement requirement; Houston v Mint Group

The court held that the trial court erred by quieting title in defendants under the doctrine of acquiescence because the evidence did not show that the parties’ predecessors had mutually treated the centerline of the driveway, or any other proven alternative line, as the boundary for the required statutory period. The dispute concerned adjoining lakefront properties, a driveway, and several structures that crossed the surveyed line, including a garage, shed, concrete pad, and walkway that defendants’ predecessor, nonparty-B, believed were on his side of the line based on what his predecessor told him about an ash tree marking the boundary. The trial court ruled for defendants, finding “‘clear and unequivocal evidence’” that the parties’ predecessors had treated the centerline of the driveway as the true line for well over 15 years. On appeal, the court held that this finding could not stand because the trial court “erred when it interpreted the 1907 and 1954 deeds.” It explained that the 1907 deed “does not refer to any driveway,” that in 1907 the properties were still under common ownership so any driveway was not “‘shared,’” and that the 1954 deed extended the line on the “northerly side” rather than the disputed western boundary. The court next held that the record did not establish the required agreement because acquiescence applies only when there has been “‘some agreement, whether tacit or overt, as to the location of the boundary,’” and here there was no evidence that plaintiff’s predecessor and B mutually associated “the centerline of the driveway as a reference point for their property rights.” The court also rejected the trial court’s dismissal of the later lease as “‘an ineffectual attempt’” to create a paper trail to defeat acquiescence, holding instead that the lease was relevant because it showed B acknowledged that his improvements “encroached on plaintiff’s property.” Reversed and remanded.