Court Opinion

ID: 9892013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 05:08:01.225736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:47.879823
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                    revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                             STATE OF MICHIGAN

                              COURT OF APPEALS

ESTATE OF RONALD HAMBRIGHT,                                            UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       October 19, 2023
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                      No. 364729
                                                                       Kalamazoo Circuit Court
JOHN AND ARLENE KIEL,                                                  LC No. 2019-354-CH

                 Defendants-Appellants.

Before: RICK, P.J., and SHAPIRO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Defendants, John and Arlene Kiel, own property adjacent to the house that plaintiff, Ronald
Hambright,1 acquired in 1957. Since 1962, fencing has enclosed a triangular area of land north of
plaintiff’s eastern property line.2 In 2019, plaintiff filed this case seeking a determination that the
triangular area of land belongs to him based upon acquiescence and adverse possession. The trial
court conducted a three-day bench trial in March 2022 and then ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding
that plaintiff owns the triangular area because his neighbors acquiesced in that property line for 15
years or more. See Walters v Snyder, 239 Mich App 453, 456; 608 NW2d 97 (2000). We affirm.

                                   I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On March 24, 2022, at the end of a bench trial, the trial court rendered findings of fact and
conclusions of law addressing plaintiff Hambright’s acquiescence and adverse-possession claims.
See MCR 2.517(A). We shall explain the background of this dispute by drawing from the findings
of fact that the trial court made. This case was filed to resolve a boundary dispute between plaintiff
and defendants, who own adjoining parcels of land in Vicksburg, Michigan. Plaintiff has resided
at 370 East U Avenue since 1957. Defendants reside at 400 East U Avenue. At issue is a triangular

1
  Hambright died on April 26, 2022, while this case was pending in the trial court, and the Estate
of Ronald Hambright thereafter became the plaintiff. For the sake of simplicity, however, we shall
refer to Hambright as the plaintiff even though his Estate now holds the claims.
2
    The amended judgment refers to a specific “triangular area” that it describes in detail.

                                                   -1-
area of land that was enclosed within plaintiff’s fencing since 1962. Plaintiff claims to have had
sole use and maintenance of the disputed area from 1957 until 2019, when this dispute arose.

        In 1961, plaintiff installed a chain link fence along the east side of his property, six to eight
inches inside where he understood the property line was. When defendants bought the neighboring
property in 2003, there was a chain link fence that ran between the properties, as depicted here:

        In 2004, some of the chain link fence was taken down. By 2009, what was left of the fence
was torn down because it was deteriorating, but many of the fence posts remained in the ground.
In 2019, plaintiff installed a new vinyl fence in the same spot as the original chain link fence. Each
side hired a surveyor. The surveyors agreed on where the actual property line was supposed to be,
but plaintiff’s surveyor testified that both the vinyl fence and the chain link fence had been east of
the survey line, on defendants’ side of the line.

        Defendants called as a witness Dustin Otto, a professional land surveyor. Defendants had
retained Otto to reestablish a boundary survey performed to ensure that the fence was placed on
the correct line. Otto testified that remnants of the fence lined up with his own determination of
the boundary line. He stated the 2019 fence was on defendants’ side of the line, but two markers
suggested a different boundary line. One of those markers was the 3/8 rod found at the 700-foot
mark. A document Otto produced was admitted as Defendants’ Exhibit A, and appears below:

                                                  -2-
        To make matters worse, defendant John Kiel testified about the existence of the chain link
fence. He acknowledged that he did not have a survey done when he purchased his home in 2003,
but he personally measured to see that the fence was very close to where the line should have been.
When it came to the vinyl fence, it was defendant himself who assisted plaintiff in removing the
old chain link fence in the front of the house, and paying for and placing new vinyl posts between
the parties’ properties. Plaintiff then moved the fence and ran it back along the property through
an open area that both families had been utilizing and maintaining.

                                               -3-
        At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the chain link fence was installed in 1961
or 1962 and that it existed for more than 15 years. Beyond that, the trial court noted that defendants
did not offer any evidence to challenge where plaintiff asserted the fence was located. Finally, the
trial court found that the boundary had been shifted through acquiescence due to the longstanding
existence of the chain link fence. The trial court memorialized its ruling in an amended judgment
issued on December 20, 2022. Defendants now appeal.

                                       II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to quiet title to the contested triangular area of land based
on claims of acquiescence and adverse possession. The trial court awarded that relief based on the
theory of acquiescence after a bench trial, but the defendants insist that the trial court erred in that
ruling. An action to quiet title “is equitable in nature, and equitable rulings are reviewed de novo.”
Houston v Mint Group, LLC, 335 Mich App 545, 557; 968 NW2d 9 (2021). After a bench trial,
the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, but its legal conclusions are reviewed
de novo. Trahey v City of Inkster, 311 Mich App 582, 593; 876 NW2d 582 (2015). “A finding is
clearly erroneous if there is no evidentiary support for it or if this Court is left with a definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. For a claim of acquiescence, the plaintiff must
prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Walters, 239 Mich App at 455.

        A claim of acquiescence to a boundary line based on the statutory period of fifteen years,
MCL 600.5801(4), requires “ ‘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 fide controversy
regarding the boundary.’ ” Id. at 456 (alteration in original). “ ‘A claim of acquiescence does not
require that the possession be hostile or without permission.’ ” Id. There exist three theories of
acquiescence: “(1) acquiescence for the statutory period, (2) acquiescence following a dispute and
agreement, and (3) acquiescence arising from intention to deed to a marked boundary.” Id. at 457.
Here, only the first theory is at issue.

        Michigan law has not defined an explicit set of elements needed to satisfy the doctrine of
acquiescence. Instead, our courts have discussed the doctrine in more general terms. For example,
our Supreme Court has noted: “It has been repeatedly held by this Court that a boundary line long
treated and acquiesced in as the true line, ought not to be disturbed on new surveys. Fifteen years’
recognition and acquiescence are ample for this purpose.” Johnson v Squires, 344 Mich 687, 692;
75 NW2d 45 (1956) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This Court most recently indicated
that applicability of the doctrine commonly arises where property owners treat a boundary line or
other designating feature, such as bushes or a fence, as the property line. See Sackett v Atyeo, 217
Mich App 676, 681-682; 552 NW2d 536 (1996).

        In Walters, 239 Mich App 453, we relied on a line of bushes and small trees to establish a
boundary line by acquiescence because the adjoining property owners had mistakenly treated the
line of bushes and small trees as the boundary line for the 15-year statutory period. Id. at 458-460.
Similarly, in this case, the trial court did not commit clear err when it found by a preponderance
of the evidence that the parties acquiesced for a period of 15 years in the boundary line defined by
the fence. Defendants assert that, during the 15-year period from 2004 to 2019 leading up to this
case, there was not a fence in place. This fact is undisputed by both sides, but that is not the period
in which acquiescence occurred. The trial court determined that plaintiff had installed the original

                                                   -4-
chain link fence in 1961, and it remained untouched until 2004. That period of more than 40 years
is when acquiescence occurred and the boundary line changed.

         Plaintiff and his children testified that they believed the original chain link fence was the
property line. Plaintiff even recalled walking the property at the time of purchase. Since that time,
and after the installation of the chain link fence, no predecessor owner of the neighboring property
ever thought otherwise. In addition, plaintiff and his family testified to having sole use of the land
at issue and being the ones responsible for its maintenance. The trial court accepted that testimony
in making its findings. “Questions of credibility are left to the trier of fact and will not be resolved
anew by this Court.” People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 506; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). Therefore,
the record supports the trial court’s finding that the adjoining property owners had acquiesced and
treated the fence as the property line for well over the statutory period of 15 years. Consequently,
the trial court acted properly in granting plaintiff’s motion to quiet title in the contested triangular
area of land. See Walters, 239 Mich App at 458-460.

       Affirmed.

                                                               /s/ Michelle M. Rick
                                                               /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
                                                               /s/ Christopher P. Yates

                                                  -5-