Michigan Property Line Laws: Real Estate 19 – Understanding Boundary Acquiescence

Boundary disputes are a common issue in Michigan, particularly in Northern Michigan, where property law frequently comes into play. These disputes can arise from encroachment, adverse possession, or unclear boundary lines. Understanding your rights as a property owner and the legal framework surrounding property disputes is crucial to protecting your property and resolving conflicts effectively.

In this article, we’ll explore the key concepts of property line encroachment, acquiescence, adverse possession, and a real-life dispute that explains how Michigan law addresses such cases.

What is Property Line Encroachment?

Property line encroachment occurs when a structure, object, or natural feature extends beyond a property boundary onto a neighboring property. Examples include:

• Fences
• Buildings
• Landscaping features
• Trees or overhanging branches

Encroachments may happen intentionally or unintentionally, but they can lead to significant disputes between property owners. Failure to address encroachments in a timely manner could result in:

• Loss of property through adverse possession.
• Establishment of a prescriptive easement.

Prompt resolution of encroachments is vital to avoid long-term complications.

Doctrines in Michigan Property Boundary Law

Michigan property boundary law provides two important legal doctrines—adverse possession and acquiescence—that can resolve disputes over land. These doctrines establish ownership based on usage or agreement rather than strict reliance on surveys. Below, we explain how each doctrine works and its application in Michigan.

Understanding Adverse Possession

Adverse possession allows a party to claim ownership of land if they meet specific criteria under Michigan law:

1. Open and Notorious Use: Visible and obvious use of the property.
2. Continuous Use: Use that remains uninterrupted for at least 15 years.
3. Exclusive Use: The property is used solely by the claimant.
4. Hostile Use: Use without permission from the rightful owner.

In disputes, plaintiffs must provide substantial evidence to support these elements.

Understanding Acquiescence

Acquiescence is a legal concept used to resolve boundary disputes without a formal agreement. Under Michigan law:

• Parties can establish a boundary line through long-standing recognition and treatment of a specific line as the property boundary.
• The required period for acquiescence is 15 years.
• An explicit agreement is not required; a tacit understanding based on historical practices can suffice.

Acquiescence often hinges on evidence like:

• Visible boundary markers (e.g., fences, retaining walls).
• Maintenance practices indicating mutual recognition of the boundary.

Case Study: A Michigan Lakefront Property Dispute

Plaintiff has owned his house on the lake since 1994. Adjacent to plaintiff’s property on the north side of his parcel is defendant’s property, with the boundary line between the respective sides of the houses and lots being the subject of the dispute. Defendant purchased the lake house in October 2012, and developed a plan to raze the home and build a new house on the site, where they would reside after construction was completed. In 2014, the defendant obtained a boundary and topographic survey. The survey showed partial encroachments on defendant’s property – a deck and attached ramp connected to the north side of plaintiff’s house, which crossed the surveyed boundary line. This discovery set off a dispute between the defendant and plaintiff concerning the true boundary line, eventually leading to the litigation.

Plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession was predicated on the alleged existence of the encroaching structures for the requisite statutory period, as well as his maintenance of the disputed strip of land, from the road down to the lake, by way of planting flowers, weeding, fertilizing, watering, tree trimming, and general landscaping activities. Plaintiff’s claim of acquiescence was based on various landmarks and structures in the disputed area that allegedly had been treated as forming the boundary line between the parcels, i.e., railroad ties near the street, a rising stone retaining wall, beyond the northern edges of the deck and ramp, past the back of the shed, and then to the lake to a board at the seawall. There was no dispute that the surveyed line favored defendant’s position regarding the exact location of the boundary between the properties, which is why plaintiff was forced to rely on the doctrines of adverse possession and acquiescence to claim title.

Under Michigan law, parties may acquiesce to a new property boundary line. Acquiescence is established when a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parties treated a particular boundary line as the property line.

With respect to plaintiff’s claim of acquiescence, the trial court rejected that theory of ownership.

The trial court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish the claim of acquiescence as a matter of law, because there was no evidence that defendant or its predecessors treated the alleged boundary as the true property line; there was no agreement, express or tacit. Plaintiff appealed.

The court of appeals found there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning the claim of acquiescence. Plaintiff testified to what he considered to be the recognized or treated boundary line since he moved to the lake in 1994 (railroad ties, stone retaining wall, beyond sides of ramp and deck, back of shed, piece of wood at seawall), indicating that while no one had ever expressly agreed with him that this indeed was the boundary line, no one had ever attempted to stop him from conducting maintenance activities on his side of said line. And, according to plaintiff’s testimony, no one other than himself had maintained the disputed area since 1994. Plaintiff testified that not until September 2014, which is when he and defendant began communicating by email and phone regarding the 2014 surveyed line, had he ever had a conversation with anyone regarding the property line between his lot and defendant’s parcel.

Resolving Boundary Disputes in Michigan

Resolving boundary disputes requires both a clear understanding of the legal doctrines involved and practical approaches to conflict resolution. While informal negotiations often succeed, legal action may be necessary if disputes persist. Here are some strategies property owners can use.

Steps to Resolve Disputes

1. Negotiation: Property owners can attempt to resolve disputes amicably through discussion.
2. Mediation or Arbitration: Involving neutral third parties can help reach a fair resolution.
3. Legal Action: If other methods fail, seeking a court’s intervention may be necessary to resolve the dispute definitively.

Role of Property Lawyers

A lawyer specializing in property law can:

• Evaluate the facts of the case.
• Advise on the best course of action.
• Represent property owners in negotiations, mediations, or court proceedings.

Legal Implications and Considerations

Boundary disputes carry significant legal and financial risks for property owners. Being proactive in understanding and addressing these disputes is critical to mitigating potential damage. Here’s what property owners should consider.

Risks of Boundary Disputes

• Loss of Property: Adverse possession or acquiescence could lead to permanent loss of land.
• Financial Costs: Litigation and related expenses can be significant.
• Reputational Harm: Prolonged disputes may strain neighborly relationships.

Importance of Legal Guidance

Michigan property laws are complex, and disputes often involve nuanced legal doctrines. Consulting a qualified attorney ensures:

• Compliance with applicable laws.
• Protection of your property rights.
• Strategic and effective resolution of disputes.

Are You Facing a Property Dispute in Michigan?

Boundary disputes can be complex and emotionally charged. Understanding the legal doctrines of adverse possession and acquiescence can help property owners resolve conflicts effectively.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Our lawyers represent clients in a wide range of real estate litigation, including:

• Boundary disputes
• Neighbor disputes
• Purchase and sales disputes
• Residential real estate disputes
• Easement and access disputes

Our attorneys have litigated literally thousands of cases. We understand that litigation can be costly and time-consuming. We are focused on helping our clients resolve disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services