Riparian rights dispute over a piece of property between the parties’ respective properties; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Hearsay exceptions; MRE 802; Campbell v. Department of Human Servs.; Principle that statements offered to show that they were made or to show their effect on the listener are not hearsay; Hilliard v. Schmidt; Waiver; Principle that a party who expressly agrees with an issue in the trial court cannot then take a contrary position on appeal; Grant v. AAA MI/WI, Inc.; Harboring error as an appellate parachute; Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Compass Healthcare PLC; Quiet title; Acquiescence; Sackett v. Atyeo; Killips v. Mannisto; Adverse possession; Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v. Van Dyke SC Props., LLC; “Hostility”; Jonkers v. Summit Twp.; The 15-year limitations period for adverse possession; MCL 600.5801(4); Accrual; Adams v. Adams; Disseisin; MCL 600.5829(1); Kipka v. Fountain; Principle that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment where there is no actual controversy; Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co.; McGill v. Auto Ass’n of MI; Credibility; Patel v. Patel

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief and finding he failed to establish title to the disputed property through acquiescence or adverse possession. Plaintiff filed this action claiming he was entitled to declaratory relief because defendants did not assert a claim to a disputed piece of land between their respective properties within the applicable statutory limitations period. The trial court denied his request to quiet title and for declaratory relief. On appeal, the court first rejected his argument that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence in the form of a letter he received from defendants’ attorney about his installation of lights on the disputed property, noting he “affirmatively consented” to it at trial. The letter also “was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, it was offered to show the effect on the listener.” Defense counsel’s “line of questioning related to plaintiff’s interpretation of the letter.” The court then rejected his claim that he acquired title to the disputed property by acquiescence or adverse possession, noting that defendants’ attorney’s letter showed “plaintiff’s awareness that [they] did not acquiesce to the seawall being the boundary line because in 2010, they informed [him] he had placed lights on the disputed seawall portion that belonged to them, not him.” Further, after they conducted a boundary line survey in 2009, they placed a stake in the ground to show this boundary. In addition, “although plaintiff testified that he was the only person who backfilled and seeded the disputed property area,” defendants disputed this claim. Moreover, the evidence did “not establish that the parties treated the seawall as the boundary line for at least 15 years to establish a claim of adverse possession.” And the statutory limitations period to establish a claim of adverse possession had not expired. Thus, “there was no actual controversy, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment.” Affirmed.