Mary Ann Lamkin v. Catherine L Barrett, 329630

Neighbor dispute over an ~1-foot strip of land between plaintiff’s parcel and defendant’s fence; plaintiff sued claiming ownership by adverse possession (filed Aug 25, 2015) and sought a TRO to stop removal of the fence.
At hearing the old fence had already been torn down; plaintiff alleged predecessors (Vincents, Krupa-Miller, BJD) knew the fence was off the deed line and that she had repaired and used the strip.
Plaintiff filed a 2002 affidavit with the Register of Deeds asserting an adverse-possession interest; she argued alternatively (on appeal) that her claim was one of acquiescence to the fence as the boundary.
Trial court denied the TRO, held a show-cause hearing, and granted summary disposition for defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2)/(I)(1), concluding plaintiff failed to plead elements of adverse possession and that acquiescence did not apply.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied; she appealed challenging (1) grant of summary disposition (arguing her claim was acquiescence, not adverse possession), and (2) denial of injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition was improper because the claim was acquiescence (which does not require hostility) rather than adverse possession	Lamkin: complaint and facts support acquiescence; hostility is not required	Barrett: pleadings show awareness by predecessors of the true line, so no acquiescence; complaint pleads adverse-possession facts and fails to allege parties treated the fence as the boundary	Court: Construed complaint as adverse possession and alternatively as acquiescence; pleadings fail to allege acquiescence (no showing parties treated fence as boundary), so C(8) dismissal appropriate
Whether the trial court erred by granting judgment without discovery or evidentiary hearing	Lamkin: summary disposition before discovery/pre-hearing was premature	Barrett: pleadings alone show legal insufficiency; no factual development could cure defect	Court: Proper to grant under MCR 2.116(C)(8)/(I)(1) because amendment would be futile given plaintiff’s own statements; no hearing required
Whether plaintiff was entitled to a TRO/preliminary injunction to prevent fence removal	Lamkin: immediate irreparable harm; equitable relief warranted	Barrett: plaintiff lacks a legally cognizable claim (no adverse possession/acquiescence), so equitable relief not available	Court: Denial of injunction not an abuse of discretion — equitable remedy unavailable where underlying legal claim fails

Moser v. Detroit, 284 Mich. App. 536 (standard of review for summary disposition)
Bd. of Trustees of Policemen & Firemen Retirement Sys v. Detroit, 270 Mich. App. 74 (court may render judgment for opposing party under MCR 2.116(I)(2))
Gorman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (MCR 2.116(C)(8) — pleadings must state facts, not conclusory allegations)
ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 204 Mich. App. 392 (pleader’s conclusions unsupported by facts are insufficient)
Gorte v. Dep’t of Transp., 202 Mich. App. 161 (elements of adverse possession include hostility)
Walters v. Snyder, 239 Mich. App. 453 (acquiescence theory and its requirements)
Sackett v. Atyeo, 217 Mich. App. 676 (acquiescence arises when owners mistakenly treat a line as the boundary)
Siegel v. Renkiewicz’ Estate, 373 Mich. 421 (tacking predecessors’ acquiescence for statutory period)
Lane v. KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc., 231 Mich. App. 689 (amendment may be denied as futile)
Freeman v. Mitchell, 198 Mich. 207 (standard for reviewing injunctions)
Charter Twp. of Bloomfield v. Oakland Co. Clerk, 253 Mich. App. 1 (requirements for injunctive relief: inadequate remedy at law and imminent irreparable harm)
Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich. App. 644 (injunction is equitable remedy; underlying wrongful conduct required)
Adams v. Adams, 276 Mich. App. 704 (courts construe pro se pleadings by their gravamen)