In 2022, a Michigan man ploughed a landscaped strip of land beside his brother’s home, triggering a dispute over who had the right to use it. Frederick G. Bender and his wife, Susan, said their family had maintained the 0.13-acre area for years, although it was part of his brother David A. Bender’s property. They sued David and his wife, Jean, seeking compensation and recognition of their claim over the land. Four years later, an appeals court revived their boundary claim after a lower court rejected it, while awarding them $5,364.44 for the damage caused.According to court records, Frederick and Susan had maintained the disputed strip for several years. The practice reportedly went back to a time when one of Frederick’s parents owned their property. They argued that David and Jean had accepted this arrangement over the years and that the boundary should be recognised in their favour.The disputed area measured 0.13 acres and lay along the northern and eastern edges of Frederick and Susan’s property. Both boundaries were surrounded by land belonging to David and Jean. In August and September 2022, David and Jean ploughed the disputed area. They also damaged a separate strip belonging to Frederick and Susan.The couple then filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the damage and recognition of their claim over the disputed land. David and Jean, however, argued that they had continued to use the area themselves. They said they had occupied it and used it to enter and leave their property.The case also involved a 1991 foreclosure ruling concerning the property. David and Jean relied on that earlier decision to argue that Frederick and Susan could not make a fresh claim over the disputed area. The trial court accepted their argument and rejected the boundary claim. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals later found that the earlier case had dealt with a different issue.
Why the trial court rejected the land claim
The 1991 case concerned the foreclosure of the property. Its order stated that certain claims over the mortgaged land would be barred after the sale if the property was not redeemed within six months.One of the defendants in that earlier case was the father of one of the plaintiffs in the present dispute. David and Jean relied on the wording of the old judgment to challenge Frederick and Susan’s claim.The trial court agreed with them and held that the earlier ruling prevented the couple from seeking recognition of the disputed boundary.However, the trial court allowed their claims over the damage to proceed. David and Jean did not appear at the trial. Frederick and Susan won those claims and were awarded $5,364.44 for trespass and waste.The couple challenged the rejection of their boundary claim before the Michigan Court of Appeals. They argued that the 1991 case had never decided where the boundary between the two properties should be.
Why the appeals court revived the claim
The appeals court agreed with Frederick and Susan on this issue. It found that the earlier foreclosure case and the present dispute dealt with different questions.The 1991 case concerned the foreclosure of the property and the rights of people seeking to recover it. The present dispute, however, was about whether David and Jean had accepted a different property boundary because Frederick’s family had maintained the disputed strip for years.The judges noted that the earlier case had never examined whether David and Jean had accepted the boundary claimed by Frederick and Susan. Therefore, its ruling could not automatically prevent the couple from making a fresh claim.The court said the wording of the 1991 judgment did not stop an owner of neighbouring land from asking for recognition of a boundary based on how the land had been used over time.The judges also clarified that the earlier ruling did not necessarily give Frederick and Susan the right to recover the disputed land through the foreclosure proceedings. Their present claim was based on a separate argument about the boundary.The appeals court concluded that the trial court had wrongly rejected the claim by relying on the 1991 judgment. It set aside that part of the decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Appeals court rejects other challenges
Frederick and Susan had also challenged the trial court’s decision to cancel an earlier default against David and Jean.The defendants had initially failed to respond to the lawsuit within the required time. A default was entered against them on March 14, 2023. They later asked the court to cancel it, explaining why they had missed the deadline.The trial court accepted their explanation. It considered their medical problems, the time needed to find documents and their apparent misunderstanding about the response deadline. It also found that they had a possible defence because they claimed to have continued using the disputed land.The appeals court found no reason to overturn that decision. It noted that the defendants had responded within 14 days after the deadline and had promptly asked the court to cancel the default.The couple also argued that David and Jean should have faced a default judgment for failing to answer formal questions sent to them during the case.The appeals court rejected this argument as well. It said the court rules did not allow a default judgment simply because someone failed to answer such questions. Instead, unanswered requests could be treated as accepted. The judges found no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decisions on these issues.The appeals court ultimately revived the boundary claim while leaving the $5,364.44 damages award undisturbed. It sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings and did not retain jurisdiction.
