Plane v. Bruno

Michigan Court of Appeals

Plane v. Bruno

198 N.W.2d 896, 40 Mich. App. 453, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1245

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1972

DocketDocket No. 12502

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.W.2d 896 (Plane v. Bruno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plane v. Bruno, 198 N.W.2d 896, 40 Mich. App. 453, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a boundary line dispute. August 17, 1971, judgment entered below awarding plaintiff possession of a triangular piece of land 5 feet 7/8 inches wide at the base, which abutted the boundary line between plaintiff and defendants. Defendants appeal, contending that the judgment is not supported by the record below. We agree on the record before us.

Plaintiff predicated his claim on adverse possession. The trial court found that plaintiff had established adverse possession, but its opinion also deals with acquiescence. The 15-year period required for either adverse possession or acquiescence to be [454]*454applicable is not established by the record before us. The extent of plaintiff’s possession of the disputed strip is not shown, and whether his status is fiduciary or individual is not clear.

We will address ourselves to applicable law when we receive a record that requires such action.

Remanded for supplementation of the record. Costs to abide final result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a boundary line dispute. August 17, 1971, judgment entered below awarding plaintiff possession of a triangular piece of land 5 feet 7/8 inches wide at the base, which abutted the boundary line between plaintiff and defendants. Defendants appeal, contending that the judgment is not supported by the record below. We agree on the record before us.

Plaintiff predicated his claim on adverse possession. The trial court found that plaintiff had established adverse possession, but its opinion also deals with acquiescence. The 15-year period required for either adverse possession or acquiescence to be [454]*454applicable is not established by the record before us. The extent of plaintiff’s possession of the disputed strip is not shown, and whether his status is fiduciary or individual is not clear.

We will address ourselves to applicable law when we receive a record that requires such action.

Remanded for supplementation of the record. Costs to abide final result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W.2d 896, 40 Mich. App. 453, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plane-v-bruno-michctapp-1972.