Quiet title; Boundary line; Acquiescence; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Prescriptive easement; Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props; Failure to move to amend pleadings; MCR 2.118(C)(1); Scope of relief that a trial court may grant; City of Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC; St Cecelia Soc’y v Universal Car & Serv Co; “Hostile” use; Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club; Adverse possession; Gorte v Department of Transp; Exclusive use

The court held that the trial court did not err in quieting title to certain disputed areas of property and granting plaintiffs a prescriptive easement after a bench trial. Defendant first argued that the trial court erred in ruling they “acquiesced to the boundary line as established by the board in the side-yard area.” But the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties had treated the board as the boundary line for the statutory period.” It found that defendant’s appellate arguments amounted to disagreements “with how the trial court assessed the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence.” The court noted that it is not its “task to usurp the trial court’s position as finder of fact,” and it deferred to the trial court’s assessments given its superior opportunity to observe the testifying witnesses. Defendant next asserted the trial court erred in granting a prescriptive easement in the outbuilding area. As to the scope of the easement, the court noted the “first amended complaint generally alleged that plaintiffs had used and maintained all the disputed area, and [it] sought relief based on theories of adverse possession, acquiescence, and prescriptive easement.” While defendant was correct that it stated “that plaintiffs sought a prescriptive easement ‘to continue use of the disputed property to access their outbuilding,’ the prescriptive easement count also expressly includes the other paragraphs of the amended complaint and references [their] use and maintenance of the disputed property generally.” The court found those “allegations sufficiently broad to incorporate the relief granted by the trial court in the form of a prescriptive easement, especially considering that the prescriptive easement theory was expressly pled as an alternative to the adverse possession and acquiescence counts.” The court concluded “the trial court’s award of a prescriptive easement was clearly germane to the issues presented by the pleadings, and defendant was not somehow deprived of notice or the opportunity to” defend against the claims. Defendant also failed to show the trial court clearly erred in (1) “finding that the use was ‘hostile’ for purposes of a prescriptive easement” or (2) ruling that plaintiffs established adverse possession over the stepping-stones area. Affirmed.