Plaintiff obtained a survey to get a permit to install a fence. Plaintiff’s survey showed that the chain link fence and post encroached on plaintiff’s recorded property line.
The trial court found that plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing that a constructive trust was necessary to prevent defendant from being unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendant to convey his interest in the property to plaintiff.
This case is a quiet title action, claiming adverse possession and acquiescence regarding the disputed area, a bordering strip of land between the parties’ properties.
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.
In October 2017, the circuit court entered an order vacating the district court’s default judgment, and the affidavit of termination of redemption rights, and permitting KN to redeem the property before January 5, 2018.
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.
Plaintiff purchased a home in Dearborn Heights, Michigan in 2007 with a mortgage. On February 19, 2019, the lender sent a letter to Plaintiff indicating receipt of her request for mortgage assistance (RMA) and submitted documents. Three days later,...
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...
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...
Plaintiff filed this action to quiet title to residential property she purchased, allegedly from defendant, in 2015, pursuant to a quitclaim deed. Intervening defendant claimed it acquired superior title to the property in November 2016 and also...
This case arises out of a property dispute between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff’s property and defendants’ property back-up against one another, so the back of plaintiff’s property borders the back of defendants’...
BACKGROUND
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....
In June 2012, plaintiff purchased real property in Michigan. Over a year later plaintiff was arrested on federal charges related to drug trafficking. Since his arrest, plaintiff has remained incarcerated.
During his first week in jail, he was...
Defendant’s legal position is that the option to buy expired at midnight on April 22, 2017, and the lack of any tender of payment by that time means the option expired and plaintiff forfeited all rights to the property.
Even viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the deeds make it clear that neither plaintiffs nor their predecessors ever had an ownership interest in the western 10 feet of Lot 56.
A party may file a third-party claim as of right within 21 days after his or her original answer is due. Otherwise, leave on motion with notice to all parties is required.
The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.
The trial court held that in the absence of a written agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to have the house conveyed to her because an oral agreement to transfer the house was barred by the statute of frauds. The trial court entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s claim for quiet title to the house and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) should be granted if the evidence submitted by the parties fails to establish a genuine issue of a material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.
When the statutory requirements for mortgage foreclosure are met, a trial court generally lacks authority to set aside a foreclosure sale except in a strong case of fraud or irregularity.
Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property is best characterized as a remainder estate, because her right to possession of the property was postponed until the occurrence of a specific contingency, that being the deaths of the grandparents. Plaintiff pursued this action within the 15-year limitation period; accordingly, this action is not barred by MCL 600.5801(4).
Plaintiffs requested that the trial court, either through reformation of the First Easement or interpretation of the Second Easement, quiet title in favor of plaintiffs and declare them to be the owners of an easement to access Lake Superior through the ravine on defendants’ property, enjoin defendants from interfering with their use of the easement, and order compensation for damages to the stairs.
When a married couple holds real property as tenants by the entirety, neither spouse acting by themselves can alienate or encumber their interest in the property. A husband or wife must receive the consent of their spouse before conveying or encumbering an interest in the property.
If a party fails to comply with a court order, upon motion by an opposing party, the court may enter a default against the noncomplying party.
The day after the trial court entered its order, Defendant C quitclaimed his interest in the property to Defendant B, who then sold the property on land contract to new owners.
To prevail on a claim of adverse possession, plaintiffs must show that they possessed the disputed property openly, adversely, exclusively, and continuously for at least 15 years. A party making an adverse possession claim can meet the time requirement by tacking their possessory period to that of their predecessors in interest with whom they are in privity of estate.
The parties were engaged in a long-standing dispute over natural drainage of water from defendants' higher elevation property across plaintiffs' lot. Plaintiffs moved their septic field and built a berm near the property line that caused water to...
Giving deference to the trial court's conclusion that one of the surveyors (R) was the more credible witness, the court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred in ruling that R's survey correctly placed the...
Holding that intervening defendant-Sawsan Enterprise received constitutionally adequate notice, the court affirmed the trial court's order quieting title in the real property at issue in plaintiff, who purchased it at auction after a tax...
