Quiet title; MCL 600.2932(1); Boundary dispute; Adverse possession; Marlett Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC; Acquiescence; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Statutory period; Aerial photographs; Equitable relief

The court held that the trial court did not err by quieting title to the disputed boundary-line area in plaintiff’s favor under the doctrines of acquiescence and adverse possession. Plaintiff claimed a four-foot-wide area along the parties’ property line, including land near a privacy fence, driveway, yard, and garden. On appeal, the court first held that acquiescence supported the judgment because plaintiff presented evidence that since 1983 she had treated the disputed area as her own and no owner of the neighboring property challenged that use until 2023. The court reasoned that “plaintiff already had acquired the disputed area by acquiescence” by the time defendant’s predecessor purchased the adjoining property, and plaintiff continued to “possess and exercise dominion over the disputed area.” The court also held that adverse possession supported the judgment because plaintiff presented evidence that her possession was “actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and uninterrupted for the relevant statutory period.” The court rejected defendant’s focus on when the privacy fence was built because “regardless of when the privacy fence was constructed,” plaintiff’s other unchallenged acts of possession and use supported the judgment. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not improperly draw the boundary line because a quiet-title action is equitable, and plaintiff showed she had adhered to the claimed line since 1983 while defendant did not refute that possession. Affirmed.