Raeanne Debruyn v. Antoinette Dilorenzo
351253
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Plaintiff (DeBruyn) sued to quiet title to Lot 227 in a platted subdivision, claiming title by adverse possession after using and maintaining the lot since at least 2003.
- Lot 227 is an individual grassy parcel between plaintiff’s home (on lots 228–230) and a road in the developed southern part of the subdivision; defendants (DiLorenzo and Garofalo) own >200 noncontiguous lots in the undeveloped northern portion, including Lot 227 on paper.
- Plaintiff and her family regularly mowed, parked on, gardened, placed a swing, and used the lot for seasonal recreation (e.g., a hockey rink) over a 15+ year period; some predecessor use also existed.
- Defendants performed limited activities related to overall subdivision development (surveys, planning for utilities) and paid taxes on Lot 227, but did not use or occupy Lot 227 for well over 15 years and their surveyor briefly entered the lot.
- After a two-day bench trial the trial court found plaintiff’s possession was open, notorious, continuous, exclusive, hostile and uninterrupted for the statutory period and quieted title to plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved adverse possession elements | DeBruyn: treated Lot 227 as part of her yard for 15+ years with open, continuous acts of ownership | DiLorenzo/Garofalo: uses were occasional and insufficient; no taxes paid, no fences, no structures | Court: plaintiff proved actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, uninterrupted possession for 15 years; affirmed |
| Whether Lot 227 is "wild land" making uses inadequate | DeBruyn: lot is residential in character, maintained like a yard | Defendants: Lot 227 is part of defendants’ largely undeveloped holdings and should be treated as wild | Court: Lot 227 is a maintained residential parcel, not wild land; Du Mez inapplicable |
| Whether defendants had notice or their development activities interrupted adverse possession | DeBruyn: her open use should have put owner on constructive notice; defendants never regained possession | Defendants: they surveyed, planned utilities, paid taxes, and had intermittent entry that interrupted exclusivity | Court: plaintiff’s use was sufficiently open to give constructive notice; defendants’ limited entries/surveying and planning did not interrupt plaintiff’s exclusive possession |
| Whether adverse possession violates public policy or should be overruled | DeBruyn: adverse possession is statutory/settled law; plaintiff relied on it | Defendants: doctrine is unfair when trespasser knows they do not own the land | Court: doctrine is codified via statute of limitations and long-settled precedent; willful or mistaken trespassers may acquire title; court will not overrule |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC, 501 Mich 192 (2018) (elements of adverse possession and 15-year statutory period)
- Burns v Foster, 348 Mich 8 (1957) (character of premises controls sufficiency of acts to prove possession)
- Jonkers v Summit Twp, 278 Mich App 263 (2008) (degrees of exclusivity; possession as exercise of dominion)
- Du Mez v Dykstra, 257 Mich 449 (1932) (use alone raises less presumption of hostility on wild, uninclosed lands)
- Davids v Davis, 179 Mich App 72 (1989) (adverse possession of undeveloped parcel where fencing/chains showed exclusivity)
- Monroe v Rawlings, 331 Mich 49 (1951) (fencing/structures not required for adverse possession)
- Wengel v Wengel, 270 Mich App 86 (2006) (definition of hostile use without owner’s permission)
- Smith v Feneley, 240 Mich 439 (1927) (claim of title can be established by open acts of ownership)
- Kipka v Fountain, 198 Mich App 435 (1993) (statute of limitations central; regain of possession resets period)
- Gorte v Dep’t of Transp, 202 Mich App 161 (1993) (mistaken trespassers may assert adverse possession)
- Barley v Fisher, 267 Mich 450 (1934) (must show positive acts of ownership; mere occasional trespasses insufficient)
- Doctor v Turner, 251 Mich 175 (1930) (possession must be open, visible, notorious to raise presumption of notice)