Lawrence G Sykora v. Neff Crystal Lake Cottage LLC
330005
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 11, 2017Background
- Dispute between successors to two adjoining Crystal Lake parcels (Lots 6 and 7) in Benzie County over the lakeward boundary line; Neff family owned Lot 6, Sykora family acquired Lot 7 in 1949.
- Lots are split by a road (M-22); the lakeward portions were unplatted and lacked a clear historic surveyed boundary when Lot 7 was conveyed.
- A 1996 Gourdie-Fraser survey prepared for Lot 6 described a boundary as an extension of the plat line to the lake; plaintiffs relied on that and a later Smendzuik survey to claim the straight plat-extension line.
- Defendant relied on a 2012 Hughes survey and evidence of long-term occupation and use showing a different boundary (the “Hughes line”), asserting acquiescence and title to the disputed area.
- At bench trial plaintiffs abandoned adverse-possession theory; the court found by preponderance that both families had acquiesced to the Hughes line as the boundary for the requisite 15-year period and quieted title to defendant.
- Appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s factual findings credible and any error in tacking predecessor periods harmless because actual acquiescence by the parties exceeded 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether boundary is the straight plat-extension line (Gourdie-Fraser/Smendzuik) or the Hughes line | Sykora: deed language and the 1996 survey show intent to divide lakeward frontage by plat-extension; that apportionment should control | Neff: historic occupation, use, and the Hughes survey reflect the parties’ recognized boundary | Held for Neff: parties acquiesced to the Hughes line; quiet title to defendant |
| Whether acquiescence is established for 15 years | Sykora: parties (and predecessors) knew of and accepted the plat-extension boundary; acquiescence exists | Neff: long-term, consistent use, mowing, docks, driveway, and requests for permission show acquiescence to Hughes line | Held: acquiescence proven by preponderance for at least 15 years (trial court findings not clearly erroneous) |
| Whether tacking predecessors’ use (pre-1949) properly counted toward 15 years | Sykora: earlier use and predecessor conduct support tacking to reach 15 years | Neff: party use alone suffices; predecessor use not necessary | Held: trial court erred to the extent it tacked pre-1949/pre-1943 use, but error harmless because parties’ own acquiescence exceeded 15 years |
| Whether the 1996 deed/survey controls over occupancy evidence | Sykora: the deed description and 1996 survey reflect intended fair riparian apportionment and should govern | Neff: deed language did not reflect actual use or intent of grantor and Sykoras were not parties to that deed; occupancy controls | Held: occupancy and acquiescence control; the 1996 deed/survey do not override proven recognized boundary |
Key Cases Cited
- Canjar v. Cole, 283 Mich. App. 723 (2009) (quiet-title action is equitable and reviewed accordingly)
- Walters v. Snyder, 239 Mich. App. 453 (2000) (standard of proof and review for acquiescence and bench-trial factual findings)
- Killips v. Mannisto, 244 Mich. App. 256 (2001) (elements and tacking principles for acquiescence doctrine)
- West Michigan Dock & Market Corp. v. Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich. App. 505 (1995) (15-year acquiescence rule applied)
- Aalsburg v. Cashion, 384 Mich. 236 (1970) (joint-use deeds negate acquiescence; distinguishes mutual family use from conveyanced rights)
- Jackson v. Deemar, 373 Mich. 22 (1964) (tacking predecessors’ acquiescence to reach statutory period)