Daniel Dowd v. Mark a Pruss
356246
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 2022Background
- Dowd owned/controlled property abutting a small parcel containing a gravel road used to reach a shed; tenants also used the road.
- A 2005 survey showed the gravel-road parcel (the disputed property) was not part of Dowd’s land; before the survey Dowd believed the boundary was "somewhere near" nearby power lines.
- Defendants acquired title to the disputed parcel from the Delton Kellogg School District in 2010.
- Dowd sued in 2018 asserting adverse possession or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement, claiming open, continuous use for the statutory 15-year period.
- At a bench trial, after plaintiff’s proofs, defendants moved for a directed verdict (treated as a motion for involuntary dismissal); the trial court granted the motion, finding Dowd’s use was not hostile.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Dowd failed to prove a visible, preexisting, and recognizable boundary or hostile possession for the full statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for motion after bench trial | Motion called a directed verdict; review de novo | Motion in a bench trial should be treated as involuntary dismissal; review for clear error | Treated as involuntary dismissal; clear-error standard applies |
| Whether Dowd’s use was "hostile" (element of adverse possession / prescriptive easement) | Use was open, notorious, continuous; intended to hold to a boundary near power lines | Use was permissive, lacked hostile intent, and plaintiff had no visible, preexisting, recognizable boundary; did not meet 15-year period | Not hostile: plaintiff lacked a visible, preexisting recognizable boundary and did not possess for the statutory period; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v. Lima Twp., 283 Mich. App. 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (lists elements required for adverse possession)
- DeGroot v. Barber, 198 Mich. App. 48 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (mistake about boundary does not necessarily defeat hostility, but claimant must hold to a visible, preexisting boundary)
- Houston v. Mint Group, LLC, 335 Mich. App. 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (hostility requires intent to hold to a visible, preexisting, and recognizable boundary)
- Wengel v. Wengel, 270 Mich. App. 86 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (defines hostile use as inconsistent with owner’s rights, without permission)
- Rozmarek v. Plamondon, 419 Mich. 287 (Mich. 1984) (post-ripening attempts to purchase do not negate an adverse-possession claim)
- Phillips v. Deihm, 213 Mich. App. 389 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (motion for involuntary dismissal standard in bench trials)
- Stanton v. Dachille, 186 Mich. App. 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990) (directed verdict more appropriate for jury trials; dismissal for bench trials)