adverse possession claim in Michigan

2021Disseisin occurs when the true owner is deprived of possession or displaced by someone exercising the powers and privileges of ownership. [Kipka, 198 Mich App at 439 (citations omitted).] In Wengel v Wengel, 270 Mich App 86, 92-93 ; 714 NW2d 371 (2006), this Court further explained the doctrine of adverse possession, touching on the requirement that the possession be hostile: Other cases additionally indicate that the possession must be hostile and under cover of a claim of right.

2021Disseisin occurs when the true owner is deprived of possession or displaced by someone exercising the powers and privileges of ownership. [Kipka, 198 Mich App at 439 (citations omitted).] In Wengel v Wengel, 270 Mich App 86, 92-93 ; 714 NW2d 371 (2006), this Court further explained the doctrine of adverse possession, touching on the requirement that the possession be hostile: Other cases additionally indicate that the possession must be hostile and under cover of a claim of right.

2021McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 643 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988), quoting Connelly v Buckingham, 136 Mich App 462, 467-468 ; 357 NW2d 70 (1984).

2021McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 643 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988), quoting Connelly v Buckingham, 136 Mich App 462, 467-468 ; 357 NW2d 70 (1984).

2021McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 643 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988), quoting Connelly v Buckingham, 136 Mich App 462, 467-468 ; 357 NW2d 70 (1984).

2021McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 643 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988), quoting Connelly v Buckingham, 136 Mich App 462, 467-468 ; 357 NW2d 70 (1984).

2015To succeed on a claim of acquiescence, it is “not require[d] that the possession be hostile or without permission as would an adverse possession claim.” Mason, 282 Mich App at 529 . 3 Plaintiff also brought a claim based on the doctrine of adverse possession, but that claim was later abandoned and is not before us. -2- Instead, “[a] claim of acquiescence to a boundary line based upon the statutory period of fifteen years . . . requires merely a showing that the parties acquiesced in the line and treated the line as the boundary for the statutory period, irrespective of whether there was a bona

2015To succeed on a claim of acquiescence, it is “not require[d] that the possession be hostile or without permission as would an adverse possession claim.” Mason, 282 Mich App at 529 . 3 Plaintiff also brought a claim based on the doctrine of adverse possession, but that claim was later abandoned and is not before us. -2- Instead, “[a] claim of acquiescence to a boundary line based upon the statutory period of fifteen years . . . requires merely a showing that the parties acquiesced in the line and treated the line as the boundary for the statutory period, irrespective of whether there was a bona

2026Unlike claims brought under the doctrine of adverse possession, “proof of privity is not necessary . . . to employ tacking of holdings to obtain the 15-year minimum under the doctrine of acquiescence.” Siegel v Renkiewicz’ Estate, 373 Mich 421, 426 ; 129 NW2d 876 (1964).

2026Unlike claims brought under the doctrine of adverse possession, “proof of privity is not necessary . . . to employ tacking of holdings to obtain the 15-year minimum under the doctrine of acquiescence.” Siegel v Renkiewicz’ Estate, 373 Mich 421, 426 ; 129 NW2d 876 (1964).

2023Id.

2021Despite not qualifying to take title under the doctrine of adverse possession, defendant nonetheless would have to be acquitted if he held an honest belief that he was the owner of the properties because false pretenses requires, among other things, that “at the time the pretense was used[,] the defendant must have known it to be false.” People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680 ; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).

2021Despite not qualifying to take title under the doctrine of adverse possession, defendant nonetheless would have to be acquitted if he held an honest belief that he was the owner of the properties because false pretenses requires, among other things, that “at the time the pretense was used[,] the defendant must have known it to be false.” People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 680 ; 660 NW2d 322 (2002).

2020MCL 600.5801(4); Canjar v Cole, 283 Mich App 723, 731 ; 770 NW2d 449 (2009).

2020MCL 600.5801(4); Canjar v Cole, 283 Mich App 723, 731 ; 770 NW2d 449 (2009).

2018Ligon v Detroit, 276 Mich App 120, 124 ; 739 NW2d 900 (2007). -5- This theory of acquiescence does not require that possession to be hostile or without permission as would an adverse possession claim. . . .

2018Ligon v Detroit, 276 Mich App 120, 124 ; 739 NW2d 900 (2007). -5- This theory of acquiescence does not require that possession to be hostile or without permission as would an adverse possession claim. . . .

2018Beach v Lima Twp, 283 Mich App 504, 513-514 ; 770 NW2d 386 (2009), aff’d 489 Mich 99 (2011).

2017Arduino v Detroit, 249 Mich 382, 384 ; 228 NW 694 (1930).

2017Arduino v Detroit, 249 Mich 382, 384 ; 228 NW 694 (1930).

2017Marble v Price, 54 Mich 466, 467-468 ; 20 NW 531 (1884); Bachus v West Traverse Twp, 107 Mich App 743, 747 ; 310 NW2d 1 (1981), remanded 412 Mich 870 (1981).

2017Marble v Price, 54 Mich 466, 467-468 ; 20 NW 531 (1884); Bachus v West Traverse Twp, 107 Mich App 743, 747 ; 310 NW2d 1 (1981), remanded 412 Mich 870 (1981).

2017Marble v Price, 54 Mich 466, 467-468 ; 20 NW 531 (1884); Bachus v West Traverse Twp, 107 Mich App 743, 747 ; 310 NW2d 1 (1981), remanded 412 Mich 870 (1981).

2017Marble v Price, 54 Mich 466, 467-468 ; 20 NW 531 (1884); Bachus v West Traverse Twp, 107 Mich App 743, 747 ; 310 NW2d 1 (1981), remanded 412 Mich 870 (1981).

2015“Further, ‘[t]he acquiescence of predecessors in title can be tacked onto that of the parties in order to establish the mandated period of fifteen years.’” Id., quoting Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256, 260 ; 624 NW2d 224 (2001).

2015“Further, ‘[t]he acquiescence of predecessors in title can be tacked onto that of the parties in order to establish the mandated period of fifteen years.’” Id., quoting Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256, 260 ; 624 NW2d 224 (2001).

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010).

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)

2011ANALYSIS This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party 9 Id. at 520 (emphasis omitted). 10 The order granting leave to appeal directed the parties to brief only “whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act, MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected or revised.” Beach v Lima Twp, 485 Mich 1036 (2010)