Blog

REAL ESTATE 23: Plaintiff did not have an express easement or prescriptive easement.

Defendant and plaintiff own property adjacent to each other.  No official road borders plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff and her family accessed their parcel via a two-track trail that ran across defendant’s southwest corner of his property, and ended on plaintiff’s property. Multiple witnesses testified that there was no other way to access plaintiff’s property other than the two track. This dispute centers on whether plaintiff and her family hold an easement, express or prescriptive, to traverse over defendant’s southwest property via this two-track.

Plaintiff, her parents, and plaintiff’s siblings utilized their property regularly over the decades. To access their property, they utilized the two-track that ran across defendant’s property. Defendant testified that he gave plaintiff’s brother permission over the years to use the two-track to check in on the property; however, defendant testified that he never gave plaintiff or the other members of her family permission.

In the early 2000s, defendant placed a gate across the two-track, but he gave plaintiff’s brother a key and continued to grant him permission. Finally, in 2016, after finding evidence of strangers and damage on his property, defendant placed another lock on the gate and refused to give plaintiff’s brother another key.  The law suit followed.

In order to create an express easement, there must be language in the writing manifesting a clear intent to create a servitude. In reviewing other deeds in the record, the easement was extinguished, so no express easement could have transferred with the land.

An easement by prescription results from use of another’s property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. The burden is on the party claiming a prescriptive easement to show by satisfactory proof that the use of the defendant’s property was of such a character and continued for such a length of time that it ripened into a prescriptive easement.

While there was testimony to show that plaintiff and her family used the two-track, plaintiff testified that during her first visit to the property, she was unaware of who even owned the two-track. There was no evidence to show or suggest that plaintiff subsequently placed defendant on notice of a claim of use. There was no evidence establishing that plaintiff or her family told defendant that they claimed a right of way. While mere usage would ordinarily be enough to satisfy the adversity requirement, the heightened standards for wild and unenclosed land require more. In this case, the record supports that defendant’s property was wild and unenclosed.  Therefore, plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over defendant’s property.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter? We understand that litigation can be costly and time-consuming. We are focused on helping our clients resolve disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, consistent with their objectives.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery and Burglary

Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of someone’s personal property by...

Do I Have To Go To Court If I Get A Divorce?

If you’re contemplating a divorce in Michigan, you probably have a lot of questions. One of the most intimidating aspects of getting a divorce in Michigan or anywhere else is the idea of having to appear in court. The laws for getting a...

Do I Need A Prenuptial Agreement?

A prenuptial agreement is not only for the wealthy people in society, like Hollywood celebrities and the like but also for any couple that brings personal assets, property, debts or children from a former relationship into the marriage. This...

PROBATE 19: Respondent argues she did not receive notice of hearing until five days before.

Respondent argues that she was denied her right to due process of law because she did not receive notice of the hearing until five days before it took place. Respondent argues that the five-day notice of hearing violated her right to due process. Due process generally requires that notice be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action and to provide them an opportunity to be heard.

WILLS/TRUSTS 11: Allegations that a trustee violated his fiduciary duties.

MCL 700.7803 states that a trustee shall act as would a prudent person in dealing with the property of another, including following the standards of the Michigan prudent investor rule. If the trustee has special skills or is named trustee on the basis of representation of special skills or expertise, the trustee is under a duty to use those skills. MCL 700.7810 states that a trustee shall take reasonable steps to take control of and protect the trust property.

How Is Probation Violated?

If you are on probation, it means you have the judge's trust and have been allowed some level of freedom. Now you must work on ensuring you don’t violate your probation. You will need to abide by every term that the criminal court judge...

REAL ESTATE 25: Foreclosure and sheriff’s sale, redemption period expired.

In lieu of an answer, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), arguing essentially that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims related to the Property because plaintiff’s legal interest in the Property was extinguished through properly conducted foreclosure proceedings and the redemption period had expired and that none of plaintiff’s claims had legal merit.

I Was Arrested- Can I Question The Cop?

There are things that the police wouldn’t want people to know, and this is for the apparent reason that their investigations wouldn’t yield many convictions as they would like. The role of a police officer is to make arrests followed by...

REAL ESTATE 24: Court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for failure to join third party.

Defendants’ counter-complaint sought a declaration, among other things, that defendants had acquired a legal right to use the Drive as a means to access their property. But defendants did not add the LLC, the owner of the Drive, as a party to their suit. Consequently, the trial court dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for easement rights because of the failure to join LLC—a necessary party.

Can Your Marriage Be Annulled?

An annulment officially erases a marriage. In Michigan, it is harder to get your marriage annulled than it is to get a divorce. The annulment procedure is very similar to the divorce process, and you need filing of the right documents and service...

Estate Planning- What Errors You Should Avoid?

Estate planning is a task financial experts say you should never neglect. Despite this, according to a 2017 survey, 6 in 10 Americans don't have a will. While not doing any estate planning is the biggest mistake of all, here are three...

REAL ESTATE 22: Court found denial of rezoning from multiple-family to commercial invalid.

Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that the rezoning denial deprived it of its constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process. The parties filed competing motions for summary disposition. The briefs largely focused on whether defendant had treated the Property differently from other properties in the downtown area and whether it had legitimate reasons for doing so.

FAMILY LAW 24: Plaintiff-mother denied her motion to change parenting time.

The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 authorizes a trial court to issue custody and parenting-time orders that are in the child’s best interests. A showing of proper cause or change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting-time order. The movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists.

Custody of Pets In A Divorce

Divorce comes with confusion and mixed emotions. The question of who gets custody of pets may be even more confusing- especially since pets can begin to feel like family. Courts often look out for the interest of human children and allow for shared...

PROBATE 14: Trial court found involuntary mental health treatment appropriate.

To receive involuntary mental health treatment under the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001, a petitioner is required to establish that respondent has a mental illness and who as a result of that mental illness can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure himself, herself, or another individual, and who has engaged in an act or acts or made significant threats that are substantially supportive of the expectation.

BUSINESS LAW 6: Membership dispute in a LLC.

Based on the testimony, the trial court ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the assets of the LLC. The trial court also directed the LLC to make a distribution to plaintiff, which represented the 49% share owed to him to compensate for defendant’s distribution.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000