Acquiescence; Collateral estoppel; MCR 2.116(C)(7) & (I); Leahy v Orion Twp; Monat v State Farm Ins Co; Defaults; MCR 2.603(D)(1); Good cause; Meritorious defense; Requests for admission; MCR 2.312(B)(1); Default judgment; Cumulative error

The court held that the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ acquiescence claim on collateral-estoppel grounds but did not abuse its discretion by setting aside defendants’ initial default or declining to enter a default judgment based on their failure to respond to requests for admission. Plaintiffs alleged that for several years they landscaped a 0.13-acre strip of land on defendants’ adjoining parcel and that defendants acquiesced to the resulting property boundary. After defendants plowed the disputed land, plaintiffs sued for acquiescence, trespass, and waste. The trial court dismissed the acquiescence claim based on a 1991 foreclosure judgment involving the disputed land. Plaintiffs later prevailed on their trespass and waste claims at a bench trial and were awarded $5,364.44. On appeal, the court concluded that collateral estoppel did not apply because “the question at issue—whether defendants acquiesced to property lines established by plaintiffs’ landscaping over the eastern border of their property—was not actively litigated in and determined by the 1991 judgment of foreclosure.” Further, plaintiffs were not asserting the same legal right involved in the foreclosure, and the foreclosure judgment did not suggest “that an owner of an adjacent parcel may not bring a claim of acquiescence.” As to the initial default, the trial court acted within its discretion where defendants responded shortly after the deadline, promptly moved to set aside the default, offered explanations for the delay, and presented evidence of a meritorious defense through their continued use of the disputed land. The court also upheld the refusal to enter a default judgment after defendants failed to answer requests for admission. Although the clerk had entered a second default, MCR 2.312 provides that unanswered requests are deemed admitted, while “the court rules do not provide for default as a remedy for a party’s failure to respond to requests for admission.” Finally, cumulative error did not warrant relief because the acquiescence ruling was the only error. The court vacated the dismissal of the acquiescence claim and remanded for further proceedings.