Quiet title; MCL 600.2932(1); 15-year limitations period; MCL 600.5801(4); Disseisin; MCL 600.5829(1); Adverse possession; Marlette Auto Wash LLC v Van Dyke SC Props LLC; Tacking; Acquiescence; Houston v Mint Group LLC; Summary disposition

The court held that plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that they or their predecessors reacquired title to a disputed 50-foot strip of land through adverse possession or acquiescence. Plaintiffs purchased their property at a 2015 tax sale. They alleged that a mistake originating in a 1965 tax deed changed a boundary measurement from 400 to 450 feet and improperly placed the disputed strip within defendant’s property. Plaintiffs did not challenge the determination that their predecessors had been disseised of the strip by 1980. Instead, they asserted that title was later reacquired through adverse possession or acquiescence, relying primarily on a 1982 deed, a 2013 affidavit, the existence and use of a structure on the disputed land, and tax records. The court found that the documents did not support adverse possession. The 1982 deed repeated the same legal description as the 1965 deed and referred only generally to other property possessed “in this vicinity,” while the affidavit likewise failed to identify the specific land allegedly adversely possessed. Thus, “there is no indication that anyone reviewing these documents in the chain of title could have constructive notice that plaintiffs’ predecessors in title were adversely possessing the disputed area.” Nor did evidence concerning the structure establish when it was built, by whom, or how the disputed strip was continuously used. “Simply put, plaintiffs have not proffered facts that could establish that their predecessors in title openly and notoriously possessed the disputed area for the requisite 15-year period.” The acquiescence claim also failed because there was no evidence that successive neighboring owners treated a particular boundary as controlling for 15 years. Rather, the record lacked evidence concerning defendants’ predecessors’ “thoughts, actions, acquiescence, or lack thereof,” and defendant’s most recent predecessor affirmatively disputed plaintiffs’ ownership. The court affirmed summary disposition but remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s unresolved counterclaims.