Case Name: BACHUS v. WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND); CUMMINGS v. WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-01-19
Citations: 122 Mich. App. 557
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 64905, 64906
Parties: BACHUS v WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND) CUMMINGS v WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Cynar, P.J., and J. H. Gillis and Allen, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 122
Pages: 557–570

Head Matter:
BACHUS v WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND) CUMMINGS v WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP (ON REMAND)
Docket Nos. 64905, 64906.
Submitted July 20, 1982, at Grand Rapids.
—Decided January 19, 1983.
Plaintiffs in two separate actions, Littleton J. Bachus and Elizabeth A. Bachus in one, and Truman H. Cummings, Jr., Alice J. Cummings, Joyce C. Smith and Cheryl C. VonValtier in the other, were adjoining property owners of property which the defendant, Township of West Traverse, claimed by adverse possession. The actions were brought to quiet title. The actions were consolidated and, following a bench trial, the Emmet Circuit Court, Nicholas J. Lambros, J., found that the township had acquired title by adverse possession. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. 107 Mich App 743 (1981). Upon application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, that Court remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiffs were assessed for and paid taxes upon the land in question. 412 Mich 870 (1981). The trial court held the hearing and reaffirmed its ruling in favor of the township. Upon receiving the hearing record, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the trial court’s findings. 413 Mich 914 (1982). On remand, held:
The trial court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiffs had not been assessed and had not paid taxes on the land in question, which comprised a small portion of the lands held by the plaintiffs. Prior to trial the township had indicated in its answers to interrogatories that it had assessed and collected taxes on the land. Testimony at the evidentiary hearing by the former township assessor regarding the method he used in assessing the plaintiffs’ lands was not sufficient to overcome the evidence created by the answers to the interrogatories, that the portions of those lands here in question were taxed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were never informed that the property in question had been excluded from the total assessed values of their lands.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 820, 826.
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 292.
Reversed.
Allen, J., dissented. He would hold that the majority placed too much emphasis on the answers to the interrogatories. Those answers should be weighed along with the other evidence. Judge Allen would hold that the trial court did not clearly err when weighing the evidence, including the testimony of the former assessor, and that the testimony supports the findings of the trial court. He would affirm, and reverse the former holding of the Court of Appeals.
Opinion of the Court
1. Appeal — Findings of Fact — Clear Error.
A trial court’s finding of fact may be found to be clearly erroneous where the reviewing court, upon examination of the entire record, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Dissent by Allen, J.
2. Trial — Interrogatories — Answers to Interrogatories — Court Rules.
Answers to interrogatories may be used at trial for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a party witness who answered the interrogatories and as substantive evidence where the person answering was an employee or agent of any party at the time of the transaction or occurrence out of which the action arose (GCR 1963, 302.4, 309.4).
Seberon Litzenburger, for plaintiffs Bachus.
Smith & Brooker, P.C., for plaintiffs Cummings, Smith and VonValtier.
Stephen B. Graham, for defendant.

Opinion:
On Remand
Before: Cynar, P.J., and J. H. Gillis and Allen, JJ.
J. H. Gillis, J.
Chutzpah — a delightful Yiddish expression loosely defined as gall. In this panel's prior opinion in this cause, our beloved colleague, Judge Nathan J. Kaufman, gave us a classic example of chutzpah, to wit: a defendant who, about to be sentenced for murdering his parents, begs the mercy of the sentencing court because he is an orphan.
This case presents another splendid example of chutzpah. The defendant, West Traverse Township, claims title to the land in question by adverse possession, even though it continued to assess and collect taxes on the property.
The relevant facts are accurately set forth in the dissenting opinion. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiffs were not assessed and did not pay taxes on the subject property.
It is undisputed that the land descriptions contained in the property tax bills sent to and paid by plaintiffs included the property which defendant now claims by adverse possession. Before this suit was tried, interrogatories were sent by plaintiffs to defendant. Plaintiffs Bachus' interrogatories numbers 7 and 8 asked:
"Does West Traverse Township admit that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have been assessed for taxes on land described in paragraph 1 of plaintiff's complaint[ ] for more than forty (40) years?
"Does West Traverse Township admit that the taxes assessed on the land described in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs complaint have been paid?"
Defendant's answers to each of these interrogatories was "yes".
These interrogatories address the precise question now before this Court. How, then, can defendant maintain that the taxes were not assessed and paid?
The dissenting opinion places great emphasis on the fact that these interrogatories were in the file at the time the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. The dissenting opinion concludes that since the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of plaintiffs on the initial appeal, this Court cannot now reverse unless it makes "the dubious assumption that the Supreme Court did not know of the interrogatories and defendant's response thereto". We fail to see the logic of that conclusion. In our opinion the Supreme Court, in remanding the matter to this Court for reconsideration in light of the trial court's findings, intended this Court to give continued credence to the existing record, including the above-quoted interrogatories. Defendant's answers to those interrogatories created some evidence that plaintiffs were assessed and paid taxes on the disputed parcel. The Supreme Court's remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing merely afforded defendant the opportunity to rebut that evidence. In our view, defendant clearly failed to do so.
Defendant contends that, while the property descriptions in the assessments included the disputed "park" area, plaintiffs were not actually taxed on that land. This position is based on the hearing testimony of the township's former tax assessor, who was in office from 1942 through 1968. The assessor testified that during his term in office there were no guidelines for appraising property, and that he made the assessments on a lump sum rather than per acre basis. He stated that although the descriptions in the tax bills included the disputed "park" area, in his own mind, he excluded that subject property from the assessed valuation because he knew it was being used as a township park. However, the assessor was unable to state the amount which he subtracted for the "park" area. Moreover, except for a general assertion regarding his treatment of highway property, he was unable to recall any other instance in which township property was included in the tax description of a private landowner but mentally excluded during the assessment process.
The salient fact, which is undisputed, is that plaintiffs were never advised that the "park" area had been excluded from the total assessed values of their properties. Throughout the statutory period, plaintiffs believed, and justifiably relied on the belief, that they were paying taxes on the subject parcel. It was the township's duty to notify plaintiffs that the "park" area was being excluded from the assessed values of their land. Had plaintiffs known that the assessed taxes pertained only to a portion of the land described in their tax bills, they may well have chosen to appeal those assessments. Moreover, had plaintiffs been timely informed that the property was being excluded from their total tax assessments, they could easily have taken some other action to exercise their ownership rights in the property and thereby defeated defendant's claim of adverse possession.
In reviewing both the evidentiary hearing transcript and the pre-existing record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. In our view, the assessor's testimony that he subtracted in pectore the value of the "park" area from the total assessed valuations of plaintiffs' properties is insufficient to overcome the contrary evidence created by defendant's answers to the interrogatories.
We hold that the trial court clearly erred in finding that plaintiffs were not assessed and did not pay taxes on the property in question. Accordingly, we reaffirm this panel's earlier holding that defendant failed to establish the element of hostile use necessary to create title by adverse possession.
The finding of the trial court is reversed.
Cynar, P.J., concurred.
Bachus v West Traverse Twp, 107 Mich App 743, 749, fn 1; 310 NW2d 1 (1981), remanded 412 Mich 870 (1981).
Paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Bachus' complaint described the southern half of the subject parcel, of which the Bachuses are record titleholders.
Similar interrogatories were submitted by plaintiffs Cummings, to which the township responded in the affirmative.
In the Roman Catholic Church the pontiff announces the appointment of a designated number of Cardinals and may sometimes not disclose all of them by name. If the Cardinal who was appointed is from an iron curtain country, the appointment is made in pectore, which means "in the breast". The name is not disclosed for fear that some harm might come to the recipient of this honor.