Understanding Adverse Possession in Michigan
Michigan recognizes adverse possession, a legal doctrine allowing someone to acquire ownership of real property they’ve occupied for a specific period, even without a formal title.
The Statute: MCL 600.5801
The relevant statute governing adverse possession is MCL 600.5801 [MCL 600.5801], titled “Limitations of actions – real property.” It establishes time limits for filing legal actions regarding land ownership.
Subsection (4) is crucial, stating a 15-year limitation period “in all other cases under this section.” This implies that to gain title through adverse possession, one must continuously possess the land for fifteen years.
600.5801 Limitation on actions; time periods; defendant claiming title under deed, court-ordered sale, tax deed, or will; other cases.
Sec. 5801.
Elements of Adverse Possession
To successfully claim adverse possession in Michigan, the claimant (squatter) must demonstrate they possessed the property in a way that meets the following criteria:
- Actual Possession: This implies actively utilizing the land and regarding it as one’s possession. Infrequent or irregular use would not meet the criteria.
- Visible and Open: The possession should be evident to anyone observing the property. Fences, landscaping, or structures built demonstrate this.
- Notorious: The possession should be known or readily discoverable by the rightful owner. This doesn’t require the owner’s actual knowledge, but the use should be such that the owner could have discovered it with reasonable diligence.
- Exclusive: The possession should prevent others, including the rightful owner, from using the land.
- Continuous and Uninterrupted: Possession must be ongoing for the entire 15-year period. Gaps or breaks in possession could weaken the claim.
- Hostile: This doesn’t imply animosity towards the true owner. It simply means the possession is adverse to the owner’s rights, suggesting a claim of ownership independent of the owner’s permission.
We’ll Take That From You.
MCL 600.5821 addresses limitations for government entities [MCL 600.5821]. Government entities like municipalities and road commissions are generally not subject to adverse possession claims.
Additionally, the “hostile” element can be tricky. Permission from the true owner, even verbal, can disrupt the claim.
Consulting an attorney is highly recommended to assess the specific facts of a potential adverse possession case.
Potential Issues
Successfully establishing adverse possession allows the claimant to gain legal title to the property.
However, there are potential drawbacks. The process can be lengthy and require significant evidence. Additionally, if the true owner contests the claim, litigation can be costly.
Real Questions from Real Calls
Question: I have been living in a tent for 15 years in a Michigan State Park. Can I claim that property as my own under the adverse possession laws?
Unfortunately, you cannot claim ownership of the land in the Michigan State Park through adverse possession for a few reasons:
- Government Immunity: MCL 600.5821 exempts government-owned land from adverse possession claims [MCL 600.5821]. State parks fall under this category, meaning no matter how long you’ve resided there, you can’t acquire ownership through adverse possession.
While you’ve met the time requirement (15 years in Michigan), the other elements likely wouldn’t hold up either.
- Permission: Living in a state park typically requires permission, even if it’s just following camping regulations. This suggests you wouldn’t be able to establish “hostile” possession, a crucial element.
Here’s what you can do:
- Contact Park Rangers: Explain your situation to the park rangers. They might be able to offer alternative solutions, like designated camping areas or low-cost housing programs.
- Seek Legal Advice: An attorney specializing in property law can provide a more nuanced perspective on your situation. There might be other legal avenues to explore, depending on the specifics.
While claiming ownership through adverse possession isn’t possible in this case, there might be other options to consider.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
How a sex toy put spotlight on Michigan civil asset forfeiture laws targeted for reform
The headlines read... "How a sex toy put national spotlight on Michigan civil asset forfeiture laws targeted for reform" "State Legislators Reconsider Forfeiture...
Reform Today’s Forfeiture Laws
Everyday, I get calls to my office from medical marijuana patients and caregivers who have been raided or pulled over by police. Often times, these individuals are not...
KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE #1 May 2015
The Michigan Legal Advisor News Letters. Read the current newsletter from Michigan's #1 Medical Marijuana Defense Attorney Michael Komorn. KOMORN LAW NEWSLETTER ISSUE...
Attorney Michael Komorn Lectures Students at the U of M Law School
I wanted to give a huge thanks to University of Michigan Law School Professors Howard Bromberg, Mark Osbeck and Law School class. This past Thursday I had the honor of...
Jury Selection In Marihuana Cases
A jury trial is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Every American citizen should embrace this responsibility by participating, and ensure justice...
Planet Green Trees Radio Episode 149-MSC People v. Koon
The best resource for everything related to Michigan medical marijuana with your host Attorney Michael Komorn. Live every Thursday evening from 8 -10 pm eastern time....
Polygraphs Proven Unreliable, Used for Police Intimidation
Polygraphs are widely recognized as unreliable yet police still use them to elicit confessions. By Michael Komorn Many states don’t allow polygraph test to be admitted...
Arrests for DUI’s on the Rise
By Michael Komorn Arrests for DUI’s have been on the rise across Michigan. This trend could drastically increase as The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has...
US District Court Judge rules police cannot enter a car without a warrant to facilitate a drug dog sniff
Federal Judge Applies GPS Ruling To Drug Dog Traffic Stop By Michael Komorn Last week, a judge with the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia...
Drug Checkpoints: Unconstitutional
By Michael Komorn The Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis V. Edmund that drug check points are unconstitutional. So what happens when you see one on the...