Court Opinion

ID: 9659844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:55:56.390344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.081593
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C. J.
(concurring). I concur with the opinion of the majority. I write only to emphasize the heavy burden the claimant here must bear.
As the opinion correctly states, the acts required to establish a claim of adverse possession vary with the character of the land. The claimant may find that more is required of him to notorize possession of remote, undeveloped property "as to which visible acts of possession are normally few and far between”. 7 Powell, Real Property, § 1013, pp 713, 714.
The requirement of open, notorious and visible possession to establish adverse possession exists as a substitute for actual notice of possession to the owner of the property. Before the law will allow such a substitution, the possession must be so notorious as to raise a rational presumption of knowledge by the owner. Doctor v Turner, 251 Mich 175, 178; 231 NW 115 (1930), Lesley v Kniskern, 152 Mich 244; 115 NW 971 (1908). Stated otherwise, the possession must be such "that if the true owner remains in ignorance, it is his own fault”. Ennis v Stanley, 346 Mich 296, 301; 78 NW2d 114 (1956).
Whether or not such a presumption is well founded must necessarily depend in part, not only on the character of the land, but as well on the character of the true owner. I submit only that greater notoriety may be required to give rise to a rational presumption of notice as against a governmental unit than as against an individual.