Background
The parties are neighbors in Auburn Hills, with plaintiff Christine Roddy owning property at 599 South Grey Road and defendant Ana Carcamo owning the adjoining parcel at 591 South Grey Road. When Roddy purchased her home in April 1983, she obtained surveys showing the property line between the two properties located 25 feet west of her house. For the next forty years, Roddy consistently used and maintained the disputed area—approximately four feet wide and extending 225 feet along the property line—as her own, parking cars, holding yard sales, maintaining the lawn, installing a driveway, and planting trees and shrubs there. In 2004, she installed a wooden privacy fence at what she believed to be the property line.
In 2008, Carcamo’s mother-in-law, Maura Ponce, purchased 591 South Grey Road. Neither Ponce nor any subsequent owner challenged the boundary line or Roddy’s use and occupation of the disputed area for the next fifteen years. In February 2023, when Carcamo and her husband began building an addition, they hired a new survey by George Reichert that indicated Roddy’s privacy fence encroached approximately four feet onto Carcamo’s property. Carcamo’s husband responded by installing fence posts and attempting to install chain-link fencing to mark what Carcamo claimed was the true property line. Roddy filed suit seeking to quiet title to the disputed area under theories of acquiescence and adverse possession. Carcamo counterclaimed for trespass and to quiet title in her favor.
At trial, the trial court found based on aerial photographs and testimony that Roddy had possessed the disputed area unchallenged since 1983 and established title through both acquiescence and adverse possession. The court quieted title in Roddy’s favor and ordered that the property line follow the wire fence in the north, include the privacy fence on Roddy’s property, and extend at an angle from the fence to meet the original property line at the road. Carcamo appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court explained that in Michigan, a party claiming ownership by acquiescence must demonstrate that the property owners treated a particular boundary line as the true property line for fifteen years. Unlike adverse possession, acquiescence does not require the possession to be hostile or without permission. The acquiescence period may be “tacked”—the current owner’s acquiescence may be added to that of previous owners without proof of privity of title holders.
Applying this standard, the court found that Roddy had satisfied the acquiescence requirement. The undisputed evidence showed that since 1983, she had openly used and maintained the disputed area as her own property, including by parking vehicles there, holding yard sales, maintaining the lawn, and installing improvements. She relied on the 1983 and 1989 surveys showing the property line at 25 feet west of her house. Critically, no owner of the neighboring property—including Ponce, who purchased in 2008—challenged this boundary for the next fifteen years until Carcamo did so in 2023. The trial court’s determination of when the privacy fence was constructed, whether in 2004 or later, was immaterial because other evidence of possession and use over the fifteen-year period was unrefuted and sufficient to establish title by acquiescence. The evidence also supported a finding of adverse possession, as Roddy’s possession was actual, continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and uninterrupted for the statutory period.
The court rejected Carcamo’s argument that the trial court improperly used equitable powers to establish the property line without stated equities. In a quiet title action—which is an equitable suit—the court properly fashioned relief by quieting title in Roddy’s favor to the property line she had followed for forty years. The 2023 survey result did not override the established boundary that the parties had acquiesced to over decades.
Key Takeaways
- A property boundary line treated as accurate by adjoining property owners for fifteen or more years may vest title through acquiescence, even if a later survey shows the line is technically inaccurate.
- The acquiescence period may be tacked across multiple owners of record; privity of title is not required, only absence of challenge.
- Open, notorious, and continuous use and maintenance of property—including parking, lawn care, and improvements—constitutes possession sufficient to establish acquiescence.
- Courts will not disturb a long-acquiesced-in boundary line based on new surveys to promote peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the doctrine of acquiescence as a powerful tool for resolving boundary disputes in Michigan. Property owners who openly use adjoining land for fifteen years without challenge may acquire title, even if the original recorded deed or a subsequent survey indicates otherwise. The decision prioritizes practical possession and the expectation created by forty years of undisputed use over technical survey accuracy, recognizing that boundary disputes between neighbors are better resolved by reference to what the parties have long accepted than by rigorous adherence to registered property lines.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of challenging boundary encroachments promptly. Once an owner allows a neighbor’s use and occupation of disputed property to continue unchallenged for fifteen years, that owner likely has forfeited legal rights to that land through the equitable doctrine of acquiescence. Even a new survey showing technical inaccuracy in the boundary line will not override the settled boundary that the parties have acquiesced to over time.