Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 9: Can parties acquiesce to a new property boundary line?

This case involves a dispute regarding the use of two driveways. One of the driveways, composed of gravel, originally ran partially on plaintiffs’ property and partially on defendants’ property. The other driveway, which is paved, runs along defendants’ east property line with neighbor and third-party defendant, then crosses over defendants’ property near their house, and finally ends at plaintiffs’ property line.

Before defendants purchased the property in 2012, defendant visited the property, introduced himself to plaintiff, and stated that defendants intended to purchase the property.  Plaintiff explained to defendant that he owned the gravel driveway, having given up their right to use the paved driveway as a right of way.  Defendant told Plaintiff that they would see about that claim. When defendants moved in, they began using the gravel driveway.

During 2014, defendants blocked plaintiffs’ access to the paved driveway with barrels and parked campers. They also put mounds of dirt along the gravel driveway. Defendants later cut off plaintiffs’ use of the gravel driveway with a large log. Consequently, plaintiffs lacked access to their house via both driveways.

The trial court held a five-day bench trial at which plaintiffs, two current neighbors, one former neighbor, and two licensed surveyors testified. Plaintiffs testified that they had lived at their property for 28 years and enjoyed maintaining and using the gravel driveway uninterrupted without any problems with their neighbors until defendants moved next door. Plaintiffs’ neighbor to the west, who lived for there for 32 years, testified regarding the neighbors’ historical use of the driveways. He understood that plaintiffs had the right to use both driveways and confirmed that Plaintiff maintained the gravel driveway year-round for many years. He also saw the barriers that defendants had erected and placed, preventing others from using both of the driveways.

Under Michigan law, parties may acquiesce to a new property boundary line.  Acquiescence is established when a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parties treated a particular boundary line as the property line.

Unlike adverse possession, a claim of acquiescence does not require that possession of the land was hostile or without permission.

In this case, plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that the previous owners and plaintiffs had agreed that plaintiffs had the exclusive right to use the gravel driveway. The previous owners acquiesced to the changed boundary line and plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the gravel driveway for over two decades. Multiple witnesses testified that plaintiffs used the gravel driveway and maintained it as their own for over two decades.

The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding that plaintiffs owned the gravel driveway by acquiescence, where they had possessed it, used it, and maintained it for more than the 15-year statutory period, and where, during that timeframe, the previous owners had treated the boundary line between their property and plaintiffs as running along the east side of the gravel driveway. Further, the trial court did not err in relying on plaintiffs’ unrebutted testimony that the previous owners sought permission to use the gravel driveway and did not treat that property as their own.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter? If you are facing a residential or commercial real estate, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney at Aldrich Legal Services in Plymouth.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

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 law 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...

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