Now Accepting New Clients!

REAL ESTATE 90: Owners demonstrated possession of disputed property because use had been more significant and continuous for a longer period.

This property dispute involves generally undeveloped land in Lake County. According to the map, the western border for Lots 16 through 20 is a natural creek feature. However, the plat map depicts the creek incorrectly. The map shows the creek in a straight line running diagonally on the western edges of Lots 16 to 20, while the creek actually meanders and winds through those lots.

The current dispute involves the ownership of land located west of Creek and inside the calculated dimensions of the Pine River Hills plat. The B owners believed that their lot extended to the thread of Creek, and as a result, the family made several improvements to the land close to the creek, such as building a cabin across the creek on Lots 19 and 20, bringing in electricity, drilling a well, maintaining trails, and building deer blinds and tree stands. However, the owners of lots within Pine River Hills also believed that their lots extended west of Coe Creek, and they too would utilize the area for hiking, mushroom hunting, fishing, deer hunting and other recreational activities.

Quiet Title / Adverse Possession

F owner eventually obtained a survey of her property, which showed that it extended west of Coe Creek. She filed a complaint for quiet title and injunctive relief against the B owner in relation to the land located west of Creek. In response, the B owners filed a counterclaim, asserting that they were the true owners of the disputed property, either by superior claim of title or by the doctrines of adverse possession and acquiescence.

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. When the elements of adverse possession have been met, the law presumes that the true owner, by his acquiescence, has granted the land, or interest to the land, so held adversely.

Bench Trial

The case proceeded to a bench trial concerning the adverse possession and acquiescence claims. The testimony showed that the B owners and their guests used the areas west of the creek on Lots 16, 17, and 18 for activities such as hiking, hunting, and fishing ever since purchased the property in 1964.

There was testimony presented at trial showing that the B owners used the disputed property with the intention to exclude others. For one, the driveway leading to the cabin was protected by a cable, and the property’s northern and southern borders had fences. There was a bridge crossing Creek when purchased the property, but they removed it. B owner later compared his deed to the deed of the owner of the adjacent property. After that confrontation, he placed no trespassing signs on the south portion of Lot 16. He also stated that he went and spoke to the previous owner of Lot 18 regarding his ownership of the land leading up to the creek.


After three days of testimony, the trial court issued a written opinion, concluding that the B owners were the legal owners of the disputed property pursuant to either adverse possession or acquiescence.

Although the neighboring landowners testified that they also made similar recreational use of the land west of Creek, the trial court concluded that the B owners use had been more significant and continuous for a longer period.

Assistance with Real Estate Litigation

If you are facing a boundary dispute or neighbor dispute, seek the advice of an experienced and skilled real estate litigation attorney. 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

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

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...

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