Dispute over a dock & an irrigation tube; Quiet title; Adverse possession & prescriptive easement; Res judicata; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; Adair v State of MI; The “transactional” test; Garrett v Washington

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of plaintiffs’ action seeking to quiet title. Plaintiffs sued defendant alleging they adversely possessed defendant’s land where their irrigation tube was located or had a prescriptive easement over the land. Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata as their claims for adverse possession or prescriptive easement over his land for their irrigation tube could have been resolved in a previous case about their respective docks. The trial court found that the earlier “case resulted in a final judgment decided on the merits, that the parties in the cases were identical, and that the issue of plaintiffs’ irrigation tube involved the same portion of the bottomlands involved in the earlier case.” On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion. They contended res judicata did not bar the claim related to their irrigation tube because it did not arise from the same set of facts as their prior lawsuit regarding their dock and boat hoist. “The issue of plaintiffs’ irrigation tube involves the same time, facts, origin, and motivation as the issue of their dock. It would have been convenient to litigate the two issues at the same trial.” As such, the issues were “part of the same transaction and could have been litigated in the prior case. Plaintiffs, exercising reasonable diligence, could have raised the issue of their irrigation tube in the prior case, and therefore, res judicata applies to preclude their current claim.” Affirmed.