Boundary dispute; Quiet title; Acquiescence; 15-year period; MCL 600.5801(4); Tacking; Predecessors in title; Killips v Mannisto; Houston v Mint Group LLC; Bench trial; Exclusion of exhibit; MRE 1006 (summary of voluminous writings)

The court held that plaintiffs established title to the disputed boundary strip by acquiescence and that defendants failed to show error in the exclusion of their handwritten-note exhibit. Plaintiffs sued to quiet title to a strip of land between neighboring properties, alleging acquiescence, among other claims, after defendants replaced a fence and claimed the disputed area. After a bench trial, the trial court quieted title in plaintiffs’ favor. On appeal, the court held that plaintiffs could tack their predecessors’ use to satisfy the 15-year period because “‘[t]he acquiescence of predecessors in title can be tacked,’” and privity is not required. The court next held that the evidence supported acquiescence because the prior owners and defendants treated the privacy fence as the boundary from 1996 to 2011, the prior owners planted flowers and shrubs along the fence, and defendants did not use the disputed strip or object. Plaintiffs then continued to landscape and use the strip, and by the time defendants relied on a later survey, the required period had already run because a “boundary line long acquiesced in” should not be disturbed by new surveys. The court also held that defendants failed to show error as to Exhibit R because it contained “exact reproductions” of selected notebook entries rather than a summary of voluminous material under MRE 1006. Affirmed.