Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 82: Plaintiff filed quiet title asserting that it could satisfy the elements of adverse possession.

This case concerns a dispute over a 193-square-foot parcel, referred to as the “gap parcel,” located in Michigan, between two pieces of property owned, or formerly owned, by plaintiff, and abutting property owned by defendant.

There is no dispute that defendant owns the portion of Lot 172 north of plaintiff’s portion of Lot 172, and the portion of Lot 173 west of plaintiff’s portion of Lot 172. In 2000, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff requesting the removal of the stones-gravel that he had placed on his property. Defendant also requested replacement of the fence that plaintiff took down on his property. There appears is no dispute that neither of these demands were met.

Adverse Possession

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to quiet title to the gap parcel in its favor, asserting that it could satisfy the elements of adverse possession.

A party claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent proof of possession that is actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and uninterrupted for the relevant statutory period. The statutory period is 15 years. Regarding the “exclusive” requirement, an adverse possessor must have the intention of holding the property as his own to the exclusion of all others.

Bench Trial

Defendant denied these allegations and a bench trial was held. Following testimony, the trial court found that plaintiff had established all the elements of an adverse-possession claim. Explaining its findings, the trial court twice asserted that there was no credible evidence presented demonstrating that plaintiff’s possession of the property was interrupted or to dispute plaintiff’s arguments regarding any of the elements of adverse possession.

Defendant asserts that he ousted plaintiff from the gap parcel in 2000 when he told plaintiff to cease use of the land and sent a letter. Defendant also asserts there was uncontroverted testimony from several witnesses and [defendant] himself demonstrating that plaintiff abandoned any adverse interest when defendant moved in 2005. However, the evidence at trial demonstrated that no action was ever taken to comply with the demands in the 2000 letter, and that plaintiff continued using the gap parcel well beyond the July 2000 letter and even beyond 2005 when defendant moved headquarters.

Clear and cogent evidence established that plaintiff’s possession of the gap parcel was open, notorious, and hostile. Most critically, defendant admitted at trial that plaintiff’s use of the gap parcel was against his interest in the gap parcel, and the July 2000 letter demonstrates that defendant had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s use of the gap parcel and sought to end its adverse use of the gap parcel.

The trial court entered a judgment quieting title to the gap parcel in plaintiff’s favor.

Assistance With Real Estate Litigation

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? 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

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

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