Boundary and easement disputes for Michigan homeowners
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids real estate lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. A fence in the wrong place, a shared driveway, or a neighbor’s structure over the line can turn a quiet street into a legal dispute. This page covers where the property line is and what a neighbor may claim across it: acquiescence, adverse possession and prescriptive rights, easements by writing or implication, trees and encroachments. I represent homeowners in these disputes. The short answers below come from my Michigan legal library, and each links to the full answer.
In Kent County, these disputes usually start with a survey, a sale or a change in how the neighbor uses the ground. A buyer’s survey shows a fence, hedge, driveway or shed on the wrong side of the recorded line. A neighbor blocks a shared drive that two families have used for decades. A new owner of a lake lot or back lot starts using an access strip in a way the old owners never did. Or someone cuts trees near the line and says the line was somewhere else. Each of these turns on two questions: where is the legal line, and who has the right to use what.
The answers come from several different doctrines, and they do not all use the same standard of proof. A boundary that neighbors have treated as the line for 15 years can be fixed by acquiescence, and the claimant needs only a preponderance of the evidence. Killips v. Mannisto, 244 Mich. App. 256, 260 (2001). A right to use someone else’s land that arises from 15 years of qualifying use, a prescriptive easement, takes clear and cogent proof. Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v. Van Dyke SC Properties, LLC, 501 Mich. 192, 211 (2018). An easement written into a deed or plat depends on the words of the document. I start with the deeds, the survey and a timeline of who did what and when.
The 15-year period comes from MCL 600.5801(4). I represent homeowners on either side of these disputes. I do not promise outcomes. I do tell you where you stand before you spend money on a lawsuit.
Michigan boundary and easement claims, time limits and key rules
This table sets out the rules in the statutes and the case law. How they apply to your property depends on the documents and the proof of use.
| Claim or issue | What must be shown | Time limit or key rule | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary by acquiescence | The neighbors acquiesced in a line and treated it as the boundary. No hostility and no bona fide dispute is required for the statutory-period theory | 15 years; preponderance of the evidence; three recognized theories | Walters v. Snyder, 239 Mich. App. 453, 456-458 (2000); Sackett v. Atyeo, 217 Mich. App. 676, 681 (1996); Killips, 244 Mich. App. at 260 |
| Prescriptive easement | Use that is actual, continuous, open, notorious, hostile and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Exclusivity is not in the list of elements | 15 years; clear and cogent proof; permission or mutual use defeats it | MCL 600.5801(4); Marlette, 501 Mich. at 211; West Michigan Dock & Market Corp. v. Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich. App. 505, 511-512 (1995) |
| Easement by necessity | An owner split a parcel so that one resulting parcel is landlocked except for access across the other | Strict necessity, not convenience; it ends when the necessity ends | Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28, 41-42, 45, 48 (2013) |
| Easement implied from prior use | During common ownership an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part in favor of another, it was continuous, and it is reasonably necessary for fair enjoyment of the benefited land | Reasonable necessity, not strict necessity | Murray Trust, 303 Mich. App. at 42 |
| Express easement | A signed writing that shows a clear intent to create a servitude. An oral approval creates at most a revocable license | Easements are subject to the statute of frauds; ambiguities are resolved in favor of use of the land free of easements | Forge v. Smith, 458 Mich. 198, 205 (1998); Haan v. Lake Doster Lake Ass’n, No. 161017 (Mich. June 11, 2021) (order) |
| Scope of an easement | The holder may use the easement for the purpose granted and may not extend it to land outside the grant. Plain language is enforced as written | An easement cannot be modified unilaterally by either owner once granted | Schadewald v. Brule, 225 Mich. App. 26, 36, 38-39 (1997); Dyball v. Lennox, 260 Mich. App. 698, 704-705 (2004) |
| Ending an easement | Prescriptive: 15 years of nonuse by the dominant owner. Deeded: nonuse plus acts showing an intent to abandon | The burdened owner need not prove hostility to end a prescriptive easement | Marlette, 501 Mich. at 211; Department of Natural Resources v. Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc., 472 Mich. 359, 384-385 (2005) |
| Cutting trees on your land | Cutting or injuring trees on another’s land without the owner’s permission | Treble damages if the trespass was intentional and with knowledge it was without right; single damages in the situations the statute lists | MCL 600.2919(1); Boylan v. Fifty Eight Ltd. Liability Co., 289 Mich. App. 709, 725-726 (2010) |
What each side has to prove
Acquiescence asks how the neighbors treated the line. The Court of Appeals has identified three theories: acquiescence for the statutory period, acquiescence following a dispute and agreement, and acquiescence arising from an intention to deed to a marked boundary. Walters, 239 Mich. App. at 457. Under the statutory-period theory, the claimant must show that the parties acquiesced in the line and treated it as the boundary for the statutory period, and a claim of acquiescence does not require that the possession be hostile or without permission. Id. at 456-457. In Walters, the Court of Appeals rejected a trial court’s added requirement of a continuing objective event, found that the parties treated a line of bushes as the approximate boundary, and reversed an order that would have required removal of a fence and garage. Id. at 458, 460.
An earlier owner’s years may count for acquiescence. The Supreme Court has held that privity is not required to add together the years of successive owners for acquiescence, although it is required for adverse possession and prescriptive easement. Siegel v. Renkiewicz Estate, 373 Mich. 421, 425-426 (1964). That matters when the fence went up under a previous owner and nobody ever talked about it.
A prescriptive easement takes clear and cogent proof. The claimant must show use that is actual, continuous, open, notorious, hostile and uninterrupted for 15 years. Marlette, 501 Mich. at 211. Hostile is a term of art that does not imply ill will. It means use inconsistent with the owner’s right, without permission asked or given, that would entitle the owner to sue the intruder. Mulcahy v. Verhines, 276 Mich. App. 693, 702 (2007). When the use has run for many years beyond the 15-year period, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the owner of the burdened land to show the use was only permissive. Marlette, 501 Mich. at 206-207.
Shared driveways are where claims most often fail. In Reed v. Soltys, neighbors had used a common driveway for upwards of 50 years, and the Court of Appeals reversed a prescriptive easement because the testimony showed each side used the drive by mutual permission up to the dispute. 106 Mich. App. 341, 347-348 (1981). In West Michigan Dock, use with the owner’s permission of property acknowledged to belong to the owner could not support adverse possession, a prescriptive easement or acquiescence. 210 Mich. App. at 511-512. In Mulcahy, the original owner meant to create an express driveway and parking easement but never signed or recorded it, and the Court of Appeals held that use under an intended but imperfectly created easement can be adverse and can ripen into a prescriptive easement. 276 Mich. App. at 699-702.
Necessity and prior use are implied easements. Both arise when one owner splits a parcel. Necessity must be strict and ends when the necessity ends, while prior use needs only reasonable necessity. Murray Trust, 303 Mich. App. at 41-42, 45, 48. A landlocked owner cannot ask a township to open a private road across a neighbor.
Express easements live or die on the writing. An easement is an interest in land that is subject to the statute of frauds, so creating one takes a writing that shows a clear intent to create a servitude. Forge, 458 Mich. at 205. Permission without that writing is a license, which is not an interest in land and is generally revocable at will. Id. at 210. In Haan, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that oral approvals for dock installation created at most a revocable license, and that Michigan does not recognize irrevocable licenses or easements by estoppel based on money spent in reliance on a license. When the easement language is plain, the court enforces it as written and may not look at the circumstances around the grant. Dyball, 260 Mich. App. at 704-705.
Defenses and answers I look at in a boundary or easement case
These are the questions I start with, whichever side I am on.
Did anyone give permission? A text, a letter or a conversation in which one neighbor said yes can decide a prescriptive easement or an adverse possession claim. I look for it in the parties’ own messages first.
Was the use mutual? If both properties used a drive or path as a shared convenience, that mutual use does not mature into a prescriptive easement unless the mutuality ends and adverse use continues for the full period. Marlette, 501 Mich. at 207; Reed, 106 Mich. App. at 347-348. An agreement to share the drive is better put in a recorded easement than left to this doctrine.
Is the land held by a government body? If the strip is a road, street, alley or other public ground, these doctrines do not run against a municipality, political subdivision or county road commission. MCL 600.5821(2). I pull the plat and any vacation or dedication records before I tell a homeowner what a fence or driveway in that area is worth.
Was the easement given up? A prescriptive easement is extinguished after 15 years of nonuse by the dominant owner, and the burdened owner does not have to prove the possession was hostile. Marlette, 501 Mich. at 211. A deeded easement is different. The Supreme Court has held that nonuse must be accompanied by acts of either owner that show an intention to abandon and destroy the object of the easement or the means of enjoying it, and that an intent to abandon the railway that used an easement cannot necessarily be inferred to be an intent to abandon the easement itself. Carmody-Lahti, 472 Mich. at 384-385. The Marketable Record Title Act also does not extinguish, for failure to record the notice, a recorded easement for a driveway, road, pipe, drain or similar facility, whether or not it is observable. MCL 565.104(1)(d). The Legislature amended the act in 2025 (2025 PA 13, effective Sept. 29, 2025), so I read the current text.
Remedies and consequences in a boundary or easement case
A declaration of where the line or easement is. The usual vehicle is a quiet title action under MCL 600.2932(1), in which the court decides who holds an interest in the land. In Walters, the Court of Appeals remanded for a declaration setting the boundary at the fence line. 239 Mich. App. at 460.
An injunction. Under MCL 600.2919(3)(a), the circuit court shall grant injunctions to stay and prevent threatened trespass when the damages remedy is not fully adequate and in any case where the trespass is of a continuing nature. In Schadewald, the Court of Appeals held that an easement holder’s use of the easement to benefit land outside the grant was a continuing trespass for which damages would be difficult to measure, and directed the trial court to enter an injunction. 225 Mich. App. at 40.
Damages for trees and other injury to the land. A person who cuts down or injures trees on another’s land without the owner’s permission is liable for 3 times the actual damages. The court enters single damages if the trespass was casual and involuntary, if the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was his own, or if the timber was taken to make or repair a public road or bridge. MCL 600.2919(1). Treble damages require a showing that the trespass was intentional and with knowledge that it was without right, and they are not available where the trespass was merely negligent. Boylan, 289 Mich. App. at 725-726. A claim for damages for injury to property is generally subject to the 3-year period in MCL 600.5805(2), while the claim to recover land has its own periods in MCL 600.5801.
Changing, expanding or moving an easement
Easement disputes often start when one owner changes something. The rules are narrower than most people expect.
The holder cannot extend the easement to other land. Once granted, an easement cannot be modified by either party unilaterally, and its owner cannot add a burden by using it to reach land outside the grant. Schadewald, 225 Mich. App. at 36, 38-39.
The holder can do what is needed to use the easement. In Maniaci v. Diroff, a unanimous Supreme Court per curiam opinion, the court restated that an easement holder cannot make improvements to the servient estate if they are unnecessary for effective use of the easement or unreasonably burden the servient tenement, and that an easement carries the rights incident or necessary to its reasonable and proper enjoyment. Because the easement allowed launching watercraft by boat trailer, the court held that it included bringing a trailer to the water’s edge and regrading the shoreline for that purpose. No. 158005 (Mich. Nov. 21, 2019), 940 N.W.2d 55.
Moving an easement needs agreement. Because the Court of Appeals has said neither owner can modify a granted easement alone, I treat any relocation as something that needs the other owner’s signed agreement, recorded against both parcels. If the neighbor will not agree, I read the document and the facts before telling you whether any other route exists.
Recent Michigan decisions I watch in these cases
Michigan Supreme Court. The most recent decisions on private easements that I reviewed for this page are Maniaci (2019, a per curiam opinion on scope) and Haan (2021, an order, not a full opinion, holding that oral dock approvals created only revocable licenses). Marlette (2018) held that a prescriptive easement that vested under a predecessor’s use is appurtenant and passes to later owners without proof of privity, and that the predecessor did not have to sue first. 501 Mich. at 196.
Barnard v. J.G. Pray’s Subdivision Homeowners Ass’n (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026), published. A Washtenaw County lake-access easement dispute. The Court of Appeals described how courts read an easement: by its language and, where the language does not say, by the holders’ accustomed use. It vacated a 30-foot dock limit that rested on an expired 1992 order and reversed a nuisance judgment against the homeowners association because no evidence tied the association’s own conduct to the interference. No. 370541 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026). Read the opinion. As a published opinion released on that date, it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
Houston v. Mint Group (Mich. Ct. App. 2021), published. In a Grand Rapids dispute over a strip of about 120 square feet by a retaining wall, the Court of Appeals affirmed title by adverse possession and held that the homeowner also took title by acquiescence. 335 Mich. App. 545 (2021).
How I handle a boundary or easement case
- Start with the documents. I read your deed, the title policy, the plat, any recorded easement and the neighbor’s deed, and I find out whether the two parcels ever had the same owner.
- Get a survey and build the timeline. I order or review a boundary survey and then fix dates: when the fence, drive, wall, dock or planting went in, who put it there, and what anyone said about it.
- Decide which doctrine fits. Acquiescence, prescriptive easement, a deeded easement and a trespass claim have different elements and different proof. I tell you which one I would plead and why.
- Try to fix it on paper first. If the neighbor is reasonable, a written boundary agreement or a recorded easement, with the legal description and the location on a drawing, usually costs less than a lawsuit.
- File and record when needed. I draft the complaint for the circuit court under MCR 3.411 and ask for the declaration and, where the facts support it, an injunction.
- Prove it and finish it. I gather photographs, aerial images, receipts, statements from long-time neighbors and prior owners, and I check that the final judgment or agreement is recorded with a description that matches the survey.
Ways a boundary or easement dispute may end without a trial
Whether any of these is available depends on the facts, the documents and the other side. None is automatic.
Boundary agreement and deeds. The owners agree where the line is and record deeds or an agreement that matches it.
A written, recorded easement. A shared driveway or path can be put in a signed and recorded easement that states who may use it, for what, and who pays to maintain it. That replaces a fight over implied or prescriptive rights with a document the title company can read.
What I need from you
Bring your deed, your title insurance policy, any survey, the plat and any recorded easement. Bring photographs of the fence, drive, path, dock or trees, dated if you can, and anything that shows when each was built or planted. Bring receipts for fencing, paving or landscaping, and every letter, email or text with the neighbor about the line or the use. Write down the names of people who know the history and anything anyone said about permission. If trees were cut, photograph the stumps. Do not move or remove a fence, marker, gate or barrier, do not block or widen a shared drive, and do not tell the neighbor they may keep using the land until we have talked. Do not sign or record anything about the line or the easement, and do not post about the dispute online.
Where your Kent County boundary or easement case will be heard
I represent clients in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A quiet title action under MCL 600.2932(1) is brought in the circuit court, which in Kent County is the 17th Judicial Circuit. Under MCL 600.8301(1), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Kent County district courts include the 61st District Court in Grand Rapids, the 59th in Walker and Grandville, the 62A in Wyoming, the 62B in Kentwood and the 63rd for Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs, East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. I look at where your land is and what is being claimed before I tell you where a case belongs.
Why people hire me for a Michigan boundary or easement matter
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I give you the strengths and weaknesses of the case straight, including what it could cost you and what it could protect. I build the case the facts support, and then we decide together how to proceed.
Fees depend on the type of case, its complexity and whether it is likely to go to trial. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people in a boundary or easement dispute in Michigan
What is the doctrine of acquiescence for property lines in Michigan?
When neighbors treat a particular line, such as a fence or hedge, as the boundary for 15 years, that line can become the legal boundary even if it differs from the line in the deeds. The Court of Appeals held in Walters v Snyder that acquiescence for the statutory period requires only that the parties treated the line as the boundary, not that there was hostility or a dispute.
What are the three kinds of acquiescence claims in Michigan?
Michigan courts recognize three theories: acquiescence for the statutory period of 15 years, acquiescence following a dispute and an agreement, and acquiescence arising from an intention to deed to a marked boundary. Walters v Snyder describes these, citing the earlier Court of Appeals decision in Sackett v Atyeo.
My neighbor and I never talked about the fence. Does the 15 years for acquiescence start over each time one of the lots is sold?
No. In Siegel v Renkiewicz Estate, the Michigan Supreme Court held that proof of privity is not necessary to tack holdings to reach the 15-year minimum under acquiescence. Successive neighboring owners who treat a marked line as the boundary for 15 years in total fix the line. That differs from adverse possession and prescriptive easement, where tacking needs privity.
What is a prescriptive easement in Michigan?
A prescriptive easement is a right to use part of someone else’s land that arises from 15 years of qualifying use rather than from a deed. The elements are the same as adverse possession, except the use does not have to be exclusive. The Michigan Supreme Court said so in Marlette Auto Wash, and the proof must be clear and cogent.
We have shared a driveway that sits on both our lots for decades. Does that give either of us a prescriptive easement?
Often not. Michigan courts hold that mutual or permissive use of an area will not mature into a prescriptive easement unless the period of mutuality ends and adverse use continues for 15 years. In Reed v Soltys, the Court of Appeals found a common driveway used for upwards of 50 years had been used by mutual permission, so no easement arose.
Can an easement written into a deed be lost just because nobody has used it for years?
Not by nonuse alone. In Department of Natural Resources v Carmody-Lahti, the Michigan Supreme Court applied the rule that an easement holder abandons an easement when nonuse is accompanied by acts of either the dominant or servient owner that manifest an intention to abandon and that destroy the object of the easement or the means of enjoying it. Stopping use, standing alone, is not enough.
My neighbor cut down trees on my property. What can I recover?
Under MCL 600.2919(1), a person who cuts down or injures trees on another’s land without the owner’s permission is liable for 3 times the actual damages, and Boylan v Fifty Eight Ltd Liability Co says treble damages require a showing that the trespass was intentional and with knowledge it was without right. The court enters single damages if the trespass was casual and involuntary, the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was theirs, or the wood was taken to repair a public road or bridge.
A neighbor’s structure or driveway extends onto my land. Can I make them remove it?
Possibly. Under MCL 600.2919(3)(a), the circuit court shall grant injunctions to stay and prevent threatened trespass when the damages remedy is not fully adequate and in any case where the trespass is of a continuing nature. A quiet title action under MCL 600.2932 can also determine who owns the strip.
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids Real Estate Attorney
- Easements and private roads: who may use a road, who pays for it and who can block it
- Grand Rapids Quiet Title and Adverse Possession Lawyer
- Deeds and title defects
- Neighbor disputes
- Deed restrictions and subdivision HOAs
- Grand Rapids civil litigation attorney
I handle boundary, easement and encroachment disputes for Michigan homeowners. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.