laches is founded upon long inaction doctrine in Michigan

2015See MCL 600.5801(4) (setting the default period of limitations for claims to possession of land at 15 years); and Angeloff v Smith, 254 Mich 99, 101 , 235 NW 823 (1931) (opining that the doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, coupled with change of conditions that renders it inequitable to enforce the right).

2015See MCL 600.5801(4) (setting the default period of limitations for claims to possession of land at 15 years); and Angeloff v Smith, 254 Mich 99, 101 , 235 NW 823 (1931) (opining that the doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, coupled with change of conditions that renders it inequitable to enforce the right).

1960Epstean v. Mintz, 226 Mich 660 . “ ‘Where the right is not an executory one but is a vested legal title, the doctrine of laches has little, if any, application. 21 CJ, Equity, § 213, p 215.

1953Epstean v. Mintz, 226 Mich 660 .

2018Now is much too late." *553 In Lyon Charter Twp. v. Petty , 317 Mich.App. 482 , 490, 896 N.W.2d 477 (2016), vacated in part on other grounds 500 Mich. 1010 , 896 N.W.2d 11 (2017), this Court stated: The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.

2018Now is much too late.” In Lyons Charter Twp v Petty, 317 Mich App 482, 490 ; 896 NW2d 477 (2016), vacated in part on other grounds 500 Mich 1010 (2017), this Court stated: The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.

2023The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Twp of Williamstown v Sandalwood Ranch, LLC, 325 Mich App 541, 553 ; 927 NW2d 262 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Twp of Williamstown, 325 Mich App at 553 , quoting Lyon Charter Twp v Petty, 317 Mich App 482, 490 ; 896 NW2d 477 (2016), vacated in part on other grounds 500 Mich 1010 (2017).

2021“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” Id. (cleaned up).

2014“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” But “[i]t has long been held that the mere lapse of time will not, in itself, constitute laches.” “The defense, to be raised properly, must be accompanied by a finding that the delay caused some prejudice to the party asserting laches and that it would be inequitable to ignore the prejudice so created.” The defendant bears the burden of proving this resultant prejudice. [Attorney General v PowerPick Player’s Club of Mich, L

1948The case of School District No. 14, Fractional, v. School District No. 1, supra, was between two municipal corporations.

1938Angeloff v. Smith, 254 Mich. 99, 101 .’ ” School District No. 14, Fractional, v. School District No. 1, 266 Mich. 479, 485 .

1948In denying plaintiff district relief, we quoted the following with approval: “ ‘The omission to do what one is by law required to do to protect his rights, and which justifies a fair presumption that he has abandoned the same, under circumstances which misled or prejudiced an adverse party, may in equity operate as laches which bar the assertion of such right later under changed conditions, even though the statute of limitations has not run.’ Olson v. Williams, 185 Mich. 294, 301 . ‘‘ ‘The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such interme *403 diate c

1938It is true that by reason of their differences of fact no one case becomes an exact precedent for another, yet a uniform principle pervades them all.” ‘ ‘ The omission to do what one is by law required to do to protect his rights, and which justifies a fair presumption that he has aban *208 doned the same, under circumstances which misled _ or prejudiced an adverse party, may in equity operate aa laches which bar the assertion of such right later under changed conditions, even though the statute of limitations has not run.’' Olson v. Williams, 185 Mich. 294, 301 . “ ‘The doctrine of laches is

2023The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Twp of Williamstown v Sandalwood Ranch, LLC, 325 Mich App 541, 553 ; 927 NW2d 262 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” Boston-Edison Protective Ass’n v Teahen, 337 Mich 353, 360 ; 60 NW2d 162 (1953) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” Boston-Edison Protective Ass’n v Teahen, 337 Mich 353, 360 ; 60 NW2d 162 (1953) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016“The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Yankee Springs Twp v Fox, 264 Mich App 604, 612 ; 692 NW2d 728 (2004).

2016“The application of the doctrine of laches requires the passage of time combined with a change in condition that would make it inequitable to enforce the claim against the defendant.” Yankee Springs Twp v Fox, 264 Mich App 604, 612 ; 692 NW2d 728 (2004).

2014“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” But “[i]t has long been held that the mere lapse of time will not, in itself, constitute laches.” “The defense, to be raised properly, must be accompanied by a finding that the delay caused some prejudice to the party asserting laches and that it would be inequitable to ignore the prejudice so created.” The defendant bears the burden of proving this resultant prejudice. [Attorney General v PowerPick Player’s Club of Mich, L

2014“The doctrine of laches is founded upon long inaction to assert a right, attended by such intermediate change of conditions as renders it inequitable to enforce the right.” But “[i]t has long been held that the mere lapse of time will not, in itself, constitute laches.” “The defense, to be raised properly, must be accompanied by a finding that the delay caused some prejudice to the party asserting laches and that it would be inequitable to ignore the prejudice so created.” The defendant bears the burden of proving this resultant prejudice. [Attorney General v PowerPick Player’s Club of Mich, L

2010But “[i]t has long been held that the mere lapse of time will not, in itself, constitute laches.” Dep’t of Treasury v Campbell, 107 Mich App 561, 570 ; 309 NW2d 668 (1981).

2010But “[i]t has long been held that the mere lapse of time will not, in itself, constitute laches.” Dep’t of Treasury v Campbell, 107 Mich App 561, 570 ; 309 NW2d 668 (1981).

1947Epstean v. Mintz, 226 Mich. 660 .’’ In Carey v. Lauhoff, 301 Mich. 168 , we applied the rule laid down in Sanders v. Campbell, 231 Mich. 592 , where'it was held that even where there was delay in asserting the right, that of itself did not constitute laches; but that it must appear the delay resulted in some prejudice to the party asserting laches which would make it inequitable to disregard the lapse of time and incidental consequences.

1947Epstean v. Mintz, 226 Mich. 660 .’’ In Carey v. Lauhoff, 301 Mich. 168 , we applied the rule laid down in Sanders v. Campbell, 231 Mich. 592 , where'it was held that even where there was delay in asserting the right, that of itself did not constitute laches; but that it must appear the delay resulted in some prejudice to the party asserting laches which would make it inequitable to disregard the lapse of time and incidental consequences.