hostile claim in Michigan

14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2025 7 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Marlette Auto Wash LLC v. Van Dyke Sc Properties LLCgreen mich · 2018 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023“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.” Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC, 501 Mich 192, 202 ; 912 NW2d 161 (2018) (cleaned up). “[T]o make good a claim of title by adverse holding the true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the posession [sic] must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to asser 2023“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.” Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC, 501 Mich 192, 202 ; 912 NW2d 161 (2018) (cleaned up). “[T]o make good a claim of title by adverse holding the true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the posession [sic] must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to asser	2	3
Shelby Charter Township v. Papeshgreen michctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See Shelby Charter Twp, 267 Mich App at 103 . -6- Additionally, plaintiffs contend that defendants were mistaken regarding their ownership of the property, and therefore, they cannot establish the hostile requirement for adverse possession.	1	1
Cook v. Grand River Hydroelectric Power Co.green michctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000To avoid these convoluted explanations and the errors that follow literal applications of the terms “adverse” and “hostile,” this section adopts a definition of prescriptive uses that straightforwardly recognizes the two types of uses that can lead to prescriptive rights. [Id. at 222-223 (emphasis added).] *686 Compare Cook, supra at 826 (“ [I]f a claimant has obtained a conveyance of an easement which is ineffective, his use of the subservient estate, made on the assumption that the conveyance was legally effective, is adverse and not made in subordination to the owner of the burdened estate.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Burns v. Foster green mich · 1957 2 sentences 2023Adverse possession requires the true owner either “have actual knowledge of the hostile claim or the possession be so open, visible, and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally.” Burns v Foster, 348 Mich 8, 15 ; 81 NW2d 386 (1957) (cleaned up). 2023Adverse possession requires the true owner either “have actual knowledge of the hostile claim or the possession be so open, visible, and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally.” Burns v Foster, 348 Mich 8, 15 ; 81 NW2d 386 (1957) (cleaned up).	7	1959–2023
Doctor v. Turner green mich · 1930 2 sentences 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h	4	2023–2025
Walters v. Snyder green michctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h	2	2017–2025
Murray v. Hudson green mich · 1887 2 sentences 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G	2	1911–2023
Johnson v. QFD, Inc. green michctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2025Although “Michigan is a notice-pleading state,” Johnson v QFD, Inc., 292 Mich App 359, 368 ; 807 NW2d 719 (2011), a complaint in an action to determine interests in land must allege “the facts establishing the superiority of the plaintiff’s claim[,]” MCR 3.411(B)(2)(c). 2025Although “Michigan is a notice-pleading state,” Johnson v QFD, Inc., 292 Mich App 359, 368 ; 807 NW2d 719 (2011), a complaint in an action to determine interests in land must allege “the facts establishing the superiority of the plaintiff’s claim[,]” MCR 3.411(B)(2)(c).	1	2025–2025
Kipka v. Fountain green michctapp · 1993 2 sentences 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h 2025The clear-and-cogent-proof standard is “more than a preponderance of the evidence, approaching the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 223 ; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). [T]he true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim, or the possession must be so open, visible and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally and with a purpose to assert a claim of title adversely to his, or so patent that the owner could not be deceived, and such that if he remains in ignorance it is h	1	2025–2025
Merritt v. Westerman neutral mich · 1914 2 sentences 2025The occupation is sufficient if it is “such as to notify and warn the owner, should he visit the premises, that a person is in possession under a hostile claim[.]” Merritt v Westerman, 180 Mich 449, 453 ; 147 NW 483 (1914). 2025The occupation is sufficient if it is “such as to notify and warn the owner, should he visit the premises, that a person is in possession under a hostile claim[.]” Merritt v Westerman, 180 Mich 449, 453 ; 147 NW 483 (1914).	1	2025–2025
Cheslek v. Gillette green michctapp · 1976 2 sentences 2000To avoid these convoluted explanations and the errors that follow literal applications of the terms “adverse” and “hostile,” this section adopts a definition of prescriptive uses that straightforwardly recognizes the two types of uses that can lead to prescriptive rights. [Id. at 222-223 (emphasis added).] 686 Compare Cook, supra at 826 (“ [I]f a claimant has obtained a conveyance of an easement which is ineffective, his use of the subservient estate, made on the assumption that the conveyance was legally effective, is adverse and not made in subordination to the owner of the burdened estate. 2000To avoid these convoluted explanations and the errors that follow literal applications of the terms “adverse” and “hostile,” this section adopts a definition of prescriptive uses that straightforwardly recognizes the two types of uses that can lead to prescriptive rights. [Id. at 222-223 (emphasis added).] 686 Compare Cook, supra at 826 (“ [I]f a claimant has obtained a conveyance of an easement which is ineffective, his use of the subservient estate, made on the assumption that the conveyance was legally effective, is adverse and not made in subordination to the owner of the burdened estate.	1	2000–2000
Caywood v. Department of Natural Resources neutral michctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1990To make good a claim of title by adverse possession, the true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim or the possession must be so open, visible, and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally. [Burns, supra, p 15 .] In Caywood v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 71 Mich App 322, 331 ; 248 NW2d 253 (1976), this Court stated: Whether adverse possession is established depends upon the facts of each case and the character of the premises. . . . 1990To make good a claim of title by adverse possession, the true owner must have actual knowledge of the hostile claim or the possession must be so open, visible, and notorious as to raise the presumption of notice to the world that the right of the true owner is invaded intentionally. [Burns, supra, p 15 .] In Caywood v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 71 Mich App 322, 331 ; 248 NW2d 253 (1976), this Court stated: Whether adverse possession is established depends upon the facts of each case and the character of the premises. . . .	1	1990–1990
Cook v. Clinton neutral mich · 1887 2 sentences 1914Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309 ( 31 N. W. 317 , 8 Am. 1914Cook v. Clinton, 64 Mich. 309 ( 31 N. W. 317 , 8 Am.	1	1914–1914
Whitaker v. Erie Shooting Club green mich · 1894 2 sentences 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G	1	1911–1911
Chabert v. Russell green mich · 1896 2 sentences 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G	1	1911–1911
Lasley v. Kniskern neutral mich · 1908 2 sentences 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G	1	1911–1911
Kingston v. Guck neutral mich · 1908 2 sentences 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G 1911It is true that there were periods when no one resided upon the place, and when it may be doubtful whether any logging or other lumbering operations were going on ; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that such permanent and visible improvements were made and existed at all such times as must have indicated to the owner, had he seen the premises, that some one was in possession under a hostile claim, as in the cases of Whitaker v. Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 454 ( 60 N. W. 983 ); Murray v. Hudson, 65 Mich. 670 ( 32 N. W. 889 ); L asley v. Kniskern, 152 Mich. 244 ( 115 N. W. 971 ); Kingston v. G	1	1911–1911

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5801 (9) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5829 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 96 (1912–2026) NY 44 (1878–2025) AL 25 (1883–2025) KY 23 (1914–2025) CA 19 (1888–2026) MO 18 (1907–2019) AR 15 (1915–2025) MI 14 (1911–2025) MT 11 (1926–2007) TN 8 (1950–2024) MD 7 (1970–2024) MS 7 (1905–1981) WY 7 (1995–2023) IA 6 (1916–2017) WI 6 (1898–2014) ND 5 (1909–2018) WV 5 (1908–1971) VA 4 (1919–1998) NC 3 (1924–1969) HI 3 (1937–2013) PA 3 (1924–1974) MN 3 (1949–1994) RI 3 (2001–2014) VI 3 (2000–2012) ME 2 (1997–2002) OH 2 (1961–2008) KS 2 (1910–2015) OK 2 (1940–1980) NE 2 (1912–1938) CO 2 (1975–2008) NV 2 (1992–2022) OR 2 (1912–1980) IL 2 (1958–1976) GA 2 (1936–1954) WA 2 (1957–1978)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check