Mark Stuebner v. Michael G Righter
334973
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Stuebner owns a 20-acre landlocked parcel in Iron County and used a dirt “firebreak” road across Righter’s property to access it since at least 1976; the road originated where a county road ended.
- Stuebner’s predecessor-in-title, John Ekes, and family members regularly used and maintained the road (clearing brush, filling ruts, using heavy equipment) while Ekes owned the parcel.
- Righter purchased the servient parcel in 2003; Stuebner continued using the road and, after encountering a locked gate in 2006, received a key from Righter and used the road until Righter denied access in 2015.
- Stuebner sued for an easement by prescription, claiming open, notorious, adverse (hostile) and continuous use for the statutory 15-year period, and sought to tack Ekes’s prior use.
- The trial court found a prescriptive easement, concluded the land was not “wild land,” and that later permission did not defeat the prescriptive right; the Court of Appeals affirmed while correcting the wild-land analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Stuebner’s Argument | Righter’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Can Stuebner tack predecessor’s use to reach 15 years? | He and Ekes were in privity; Stuebner used the road since 1976 and thus may tack Ekes’s period. | Tacking requires privity or conveyance; Stuebner cannot tack without express transfer. | Court: Tacking allowed — clear and cogent evidence of privity based on longstanding, continuous use and close relationship. |
| 2) Was the servient parcel “wild land,” affecting hostility requirement? | The court should consider only character of servient parcel; maintenance and improvements showed hostile claim even if wild. | The surrounding developed properties show the area was not wild; trial court erred by considering neighboring parcels. | Court: Trial court erred to consider surrounding parcels; parcel was wild land, but Stuebner’s acts (maintenance, repairs) satisfied notice/hostility. |
| 3) Did maintenance/repair suffice to give owner notice of adverse claim on wild land? | Repairing and improving the road (gravel, clearing, heavy equipment) gave notice of a claim of right. | Mere use is insufficient on wild land; need explicit notice. | Court: Repairs and improvements went beyond mere use and satisfied the Du Mez requirement of notice by word or act. |
| 4) Was Stuebner’s use permissive (negating prescription)? | Use exceeded the prescriptive period by many years; a presumption of grant arose and burden shifted to servient owner to prove permission. | Stuebner believed he had permission from a prior owner; later receipt of a key suggests permissive use. | Court: Righter failed to prove use was permissive; no documentary or testimonial proof of express permission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plymouth Canton Community Crier, Inc. v. Prose, 242 Mich. App. 676 (defines prescriptive easement elements: open, notorious, adverse, continuous for 15 years)
- Matthews v. Natural Resources Dep’t, 288 Mich. App. 23 (privity/tacking when predecessors and successors are closely acquainted and use was longstanding)
- Du Mez v. Dykstra, 257 Mich. 449 (on wild land: use alone insufficient; claimant must give owner notice by word or act)
- Barley v. Fisher, 267 Mich. 450 (efforts to improve wild land can indicate a claim of ownership)
- Siegel v. Renkiewicz Estate, 373 Mich. 421 (tacking requires privity; rule against tacking without privity)
- Mulcahy v. Verhines, 276 Mich. App. 693 (burden of proof for prescriptive easement)
- Killips v. Mannisto, 244 Mich. App. 256 (clear-and-cogent evidentiary standard in prescriptive-easement cases)
- McQueen v. Black, 168 Mich. App. 641 (clarifies clear and cogent evidence standard)
- West Mich Dock & Market Corp. v. Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich. App. 505 (permissive use defeats prescriptive claim; proof may be documentary/testimonial)
- Reed v. Soltys, 106 Mich. App. 341 (long use beyond prescriptive period raises presumption of grant; burden shifts to servient owner to show permission)