Quiet title; Adverse possession; Exclusive & continuous possession; Boundary lines; McQueen v Black; DeGroot v Barber; Privity; “Open, notorious, & hostile”; “Actual & visible”; Whether defendant “repossessed” the gap parcel from plaintiff

The court held that “the trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and it did not err by quieting title to the” property at issue in plaintiff based on adverse possession. Defendant contended that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff established adverse possession. Defendant argued that “plaintiff failed to establish that it had exclusive and continuous possession of” the 193-square-foot parcel (referred to as the gap parcel), which was “between two pieces of property owned, or formerly owned, by plaintiff, and abutting property owned by defendant.” However, the court concluded that the evidence “clearly and cogently established that plaintiff had exclusive, continuous possession of the gap parcel for a period of at least 15 years.” Defendant’s July 2000 letter (requesting that gravel be removed from the gap parcel) did not interrupt plaintiff’s adverse possession of the parcel, as the evidence showed the gravel was not removed, plaintiff continued to use the parcel for its business, “and defendant did nothing to prevent that use until he placed the concrete blocks on the” parcel in 8/20. In addition, “plaintiff and its predecessors were in privity, thereby allowing tacking of the periods of adverse use.” Defendant relied on “his workers’ labor on the gap parcel to claim that plaintiff did not have exclusive, continuous possession of the gap parcel throughout the 15-year statutory period.” However, this reliance was mistaken as “‘occasional trespasses do not suffice to defeat a claim of exclusivity[,]’” and none of the workers “performed their respective landscaping duties during the relevant statutory period.” Thus, their testimony was essentially irrelevant. Affirmed.