Quiet title; Adverse possession; The 15-year limitations period; MCL 600.5829(1); Disseisin; Houston v Mint Group, LLC; Open, visible, & notorious possession; Notice; MCR 3.411(B)(2)(c); Leave to amend; MCR 2.116(I)(5); Futility; Bad faith; Acquiescence; Trespass

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to include factual allegations to support his adverse possession and trespass claims, but did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend his acquiescence claim. Plaintiff sought to quiet title to a disputed strip of land. His amended complaint asserted claims of adverse possession, acquiescence, and trespass. The trial court dismissed his claims, then denied his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims without giving him the opportunity to amend to include additional facts to support his claims. The court agreed in part, finding that amendment would have been in the interest of justice. “The trial court did not err by concluding [plaintiff] failed to plead his adverse possession claim with sufficient specificity to establish the superiority of his claim to parcel B." However, all “the additional allegations sought to be added to the complaint reflect that [his] use and possession of parcel B was 'actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of 15 years, hostile and under cover of claim of right.’” The proposed “amended complaint sets forth a viable claim for adverse possession and amendment would not be futile. Further, there has been no argument of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive by [plaintiff], failure to cure deficiencies by prior amendments, or undue prejudice” to defendant. His trespass claim was also viable as his proposed second amended complaint alleged that defendant “and his agents installed cameras and mowed the lawn on parcel B, which constituted an unauthorized direct or immediate intrusion of a physical, tangible object onto land that” plaintiff claimed an ownership right to. However, his acquiescence claim was meritless as he did not plead any facts as to a boundary line, allege “that the adjoining property owners treated a particular boundary line as the true property line,” or allege “that the adjoining property owners were mistaken about where the line between their property” was. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.