Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 61: The trial court did not err in ruling that the disputed boundary was established by acquiescence arising from intent to deed to a marked boundary line.


Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent properties. Defendants’ property is east of plaintiff’s property, and the western boundary of defendants’ property is also the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s property. However, the parties dispute the exact location of this boundary line. Following the bench trial, the trial court issued a written opinion and order quieting title to the disputed land in favor of plaintiff and concluding that the boundary line was east of plaintiff’s driveway. The trial court found that plaintiff’s eastern boundary line had been established in a location two feet east of her driveway under the doctrine of acquiescence. The trial court relied on two theories of acquiescence in support of this conclusion. First, the trial court concluded that the boundary line had been established by acquiescence for the statutory period of 15 years because defendants’ acquiescence could be tacked onto the acquiescence in the boundary line of defendants’ predecessors in title and defendants did not prevent plaintiff from completing improvements to her driveway in 2015 and 2016 despite defendants’ knowledge that plaintiff’s driveway was on defendants’ property according to the survey. Second, the trial court concluded that the eastern boundary line of plaintiff’s property had been established by acquiescence arising from the intention to deed to a marked boundary because the previous common owner of the two subject properties had expressed her intention to plaintiff to sell the property up to the point two feet west of the well as the eastern boundary and Hale never obtained a survey to ensure the accuracy of the legal description in the land contract or her perceived boundary line.


Actions to quiet title are equitable in nature; this Court reviews such actions de novo. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The  trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.


On appeal, defendants argue that the trial court erred by finding that the boundary line separating their property from plaintiff’s property was established by acquiescence. Acquiescence may be demonstrated under the following three theories: “(1) acquiescence for the statutory period; (2) acquiescence following a dispute and agreement; and (3) acquiescence arising from intention to deed to a marked boundary.”. The trial court thus concluded that the eastern boundary line of plaintiff’s property had been established by acquiescence arising from the intention to deed to a marked boundary. There was testimony at trial that the previous owner showed plaintiff the eastern boundary line at the time of the transaction and that this line was marked by reference to the old well and by stakes located in the northeast and southeast sections of the property purchased by plaintiff. There was also testimony that the previous owner affirmatively represented to plaintiff that this was the eastern boundary line. In lieu of no testimony to support plaintiff’s theory, the trial court was faced with conflicting testimony as to whether the previous owner had intended to convey to a marked boundary. It was the responsibility of the trial court as the finder of fact to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and the trial court’s factual findings in a bench trial “may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” MCR 2.613(C). In making this assessment, we must give due regard “to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.”  Based on the record evidence, we conclude that the trial court’s factual findings in this case were not clearly erroneous.

To the extent defendants appear to argue that they did not have a common grantor because the previous owner, due to the foreclosure, did not did not directly convey defendants their property, defendants ignore the fact that the previous owner once owned both of the subject parcels, that both plaintiff’s and defendants’ respective chains of title are thus traceable to the previous owner, and that the previous owner is the individual who was alleged to have intended to deed to a marked boundary line. Our Supreme Court has treated similar circumstances as sufficient to satisfy the common grantor requirement.  Because defendants have not demonstrated any error by the trial court with respect to its ruling that there was acquiescence arising from the intention to deed to a marked boundary line, we affirm this ruling of the trial court. Having so concluded, there is no need for us to address the trial court’s ruling that there was also acquiescence for the statutory period because acquiescence arising from the intention to deed to a marked boundary line is sufficient in itself to establish a boundary line under the doctrine of acquiescence.


Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking resolution to a property litigation matter?

If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate issue, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000


REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 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...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea of...

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000