PAUL E ACKLEY V DOUGLAS P TUTTLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PAUL E. ACKLEY and KAREN ACKLEY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2001
Plaintiffs/Counter-DefendantsAppellants,
V
DOUGLAS P. TUTTLE and TAMMY TUTTLE,
No. 227877
Schoolcraft Circuit Court
LC No. 99-002900-CZ
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs-
Appellees.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, title to a disputed strip of land was quieted in defendants’ favor.
We affirm.
First, plaintiffs argue that their acts of occupancy of the disputed land were unequivocal,
contrary to the trial court’s conclusion. A trial court’s factual findings are not set aside unless
clearly erroneous. MCR 2.613(C); Grand Rapids v Green, 187 Mich App 131, 135-136; 466
NW2d 388 (1991). Factual findings are clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, even though evidence has been
presented to support the trial court’s decision. Meek v Dep’t of Transportation, 240 Mich App
105, 115; 610 NW2d 250 (2000).
Plaintiffs have failed to properly present this issue on appeal. Contrary to MCR
7.212(C)(7), plaintiffs did not provide page references to the transcript, pleadings, or other
documents. In addition, plaintiffs did not provide citation to any authority to support their
argument. Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620, 637; 567 NW2d 468 (1997).
Plaintiffs may not present an issue without authority to this Court. Wilson v Taylor, 457
Mich 232, 242-243; 577 NW2d 100 (1998). “It is not sufficient for a party ‘simply to announce a
position or assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis
for his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority
either to sustain or reject his position.’” Id. at 243, quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182,
203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959). Because plaintiffs have not made a policy argument nor provided
authority to support their position, they have abandoned this issue on appeal. Haefele v Meijer,
-1-
Inc, 165 Mich App 485, 494; 418 NW2d 900 (1987), remanded on other grounds 431 Mich 853;
425 NW2d 691 (1988).
Next, plaintiffs argue that they acquired ownership of the property by adverse possession.
Quiet title actions are equitable; therefore, the trial court’s holdings are reviewed de novo. Gorte
v Dep’t of Transportation, 202 Mich App 161, 165; 507 NW2d 797 (1993). To establish
ownership of property by adverse possession, a claimant must show that his possession has been
actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim of right, and continuous
and uninterrupted for the statutory period of fifteen years. Burns v Foster, 348 Mich 8, 14; 81
NW2d 386 (1957); West Michigan Dock & Market Corp v Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich App
505, 511; 534 NW2d 212 (1995). The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish the elements
of adverse possession by clear and cogent evidence. Burns, supra at 14; McQueen v Black, 168
Mich App 641, 645; 425 NW2d 203 (1988).
While plaintiffs have arguably proven several of the necessary elements, they have not
shown exclusive possession. Because plaintiffs and defendants both occupied and maintained
part of the disputed property, plaintiffs have not shown by clear and cogent evidence that their
possession of the disputed land was exclusive. West Michigan Dock & Market Corp, supra at
511.
Moreover, plaintiffs were required to prove that their possession of the disputed land was
under cover of a claim of right. Id. A claim of right requires that a party assert his claim “by
openly exercising acts of ownership, with the intention of holding the property as his own to the
exclusion of all others.” Connelly v Buckingham, 136 Mich App 462, 469; 357 NW2d 70
(1984). At trial, both parties testified that they each solely maintained the disputed property.
“Mutual use or occupation of property with the owner’s permission is insufficient to establish
adverse possession.” West Michigan Dock & Market Corp, supra at 511. Because plaintiffs
cannot establish exclusive possession of the disputed property, they do not have possession under
cover of a claim of right. And, because plaintiffs cannot meet all the elements of adverse
possession, their claim of ownership by adverse possession must fail.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.