Waisanen v. Superior Township, 854 N.W.2d 213

In 1971 Kenneth Waisanen bought property in the Jordan Beach subdivision that includes a lake-access public right of way (First Street).
A break wall and an addition on the Waisanen parcel encroached onto First Street (about 10 feet and 3 feet, respectively).
In 2008 a survey disclosed the encroachments, prompting plaintiff to sue to quiet title to the encroached portion and defendant to counterclaim for possession.
The circuit court quieted title in plaintiffs’ favor on theories of adverse possession or acquiescence and the trial record supported those theories.
Defendant, a municipal corporation, argued MCL 600.5821(2) barred the claims because the case involved a public highway/public ground.
The Court affirmed, holding MCL 600.5821(2) does not bar plaintiffs’ claims where the municipality did not bring the action, and the adverse possession and acquiescence findings were supported.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does MCL 600.5821(2) bar claims when a municipality is a defendant with a counterclaim?	MCL 600.5821(2) does not bar; Mason applies to both claims.	Subdivision 2 precludes private claims against a municipality for recovery of public ground.	No; MCL 600.5821(2) does not bar the claims.
Whether the record supports adverse possession of the encroached area?	Possession was actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted for 15 years.	Potential public nature of the land undermines exclusive possession.	Yes; adverse possession elements satisfied.
Whether acquiescence supports quieting title?	There was long-standing acquiescence to the boundary line by both sides.	No timely objection or action to correct encroachment before 2008.	Yes; acquiescence theory supported.
Is the property at issue public ground that would defeat private adverse- possession claims?	First Street was dedicated to public use and accepted by the public.	Public ground status immunizes the municipality from private encroachment claims.	Property is public ground, but MCL 600.5821(2) does not bar the private claims in this posture.
Did the trial court err in applying MCL 600.5821(2) or in its factual findings?	Statute not applicable; findings supported.	Statutory interpretation should bar the claims.	No error; statute not applicable and findings supported.

Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v Canton Charter Twp, 269 Mich App 365 (2006) (statutory scope of 5821(2) and public ground analysis)
Mason v City of Menominee, 282 Mich App 525 (2009) (5821(2) not a bar when municipality did not bring action; applies to acquiescence and adverse possession alike)
Beach v Lima Twp, 283 Mich App 504 (2009) (acquiescence and possession principles; public ground limits not dispositive here)