Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 69: Holding that the trial court did not err when it declined to order plaintiffs to obtain a new land survey to mark the boundaries of the easement, the court affirmed the trial court’s order.


The instant dispute arises out of an express easement that was created by a 1989 consent judgment, which settled litigation between the parties’ predecessors in interest. After the parties’ mistake concerning the boundaries of the easement was discovered, Defendant began blocking the easement with railroad ties and hazard cones. The Plaintiffs initiated a quiet title action against Defendant, alleging that the Plaintiffs had, by way of prescriptive use for more than 15 years, obtained an easement to use Defendant’s driveway as it was situated before MDOT’s 2013 repairs. Following a five-day bench trial, the trial court held that “[t]he proofs presented at trial establish the Plaintiffs have met all of the requirements to establish a prescriptive easement over the disputed wedge of the property.” The trial court ordered Defendant to “immediately remove all impediments” to the Plaintiffs’ use of the driveway and prohibited Defendant “from interfering with [the Plaintiffs’] use, maintenance or restoration of the driveway[.]” Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion in the trial court, alleging that the Plaintiffs had unilaterally removed markers that represented the boundaries of the easement that were put in place after the original survey of the property was conducted. Defendant requested that the trial court order the Plaintiffs to pay for a new land survey to properly mark the boundaries of the Plaintiffs’ easement on Defendant’s property. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that Defendant was seeking to relitigate issues that had already been decided. In a November 8, 2019 order, the trial court declined to order the Plaintiffs to pay for a new land survey. In doing so, the trial court stated as follows: [I]n its 2018 Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the legal description of the easement from 1989 is no longer valid as the parties acquiesced to a slightly different location of the easement than that contained in the legal description. As a result, the survey based on the 1989 legal description is not a valid survey, and any survey stakes which were in the easement—as acquiesced to—should have been removed to avoid obstructing the easement. [Defendant] has failed to establish that any stakes not in the easement were removed, or that any related damage occurred. The request to order a new survey of the now obsolete 1989 legal description is denied.


On appeal, Defendant only seeks to challenge the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to require the Plaintiffs to pay for a land survey to properly mark the boundaries of the easement. However, this issue is not properly before this Court because it is outside the scope of appeal from the November 8, 2019 order. Nonetheless, for purposes of judicial economy, we will consider Defendant’s arguments. On appeal, Defendant argues that a new land survey was necessary because the original legal description of the easement was invalidated, and the parties are unable to ascertain the actual physical boundaries of the easement. We conclude that Defendant’s argument is abandoned because Defendant altogether fails to support his argument on appeal with any legal authority. Furthermore, we fail to see how a new land survey was necessary. During the bench trial, detailed drawings of the dimensions of the easement were introduced into evidence; the drawings depicted the parties’ use of the easement following the entry of the 1989 consent judgment. After the bench trial, the trial court held that “[t]he proofs presented at trial establish the Plaintiffs have met all of the requirements to establish a prescriptive easement over the disputed wedge of the property.” Although this Court determined that the trial court improperly concluded that an easement by prescription was created, this Court affirmed the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that the boundaries of the easement, as described in the 1989 consent judgment, were modified by the parties’ conduct. Consequently, we fail to see how a new survey to mark the boundaries of the easement was required. If certain boundary lines “have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time, they fix the ‘true line’ as matter of fact and as matter of law.” Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it declined to order the Plaintiffs to obtain a new land survey to mark the boundaries of the easement.


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

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

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...

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