Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


BENJAMIN J. GALE and LUANNE M. GALE,

UNPUBLISHED August 20, 1996

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v LORA STAMPER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 181572 LC No. 93-95 CH

Before: Murphy, P.J., and O'Connell and M.J. Matuzak,* JJ. PER CURIAM. In this property dispute stemming from conflicting surveys, plaintiffs appeal as of right the order of the circuit court upholding the boundary line claimed by defendant. We reverse. In the 1930s, William Armstrong, the surveyor for the Washtenaw County Road Commission, surveyed property in Washtenaw County and established the southwest corner of section 18, Ypsilanti Township. Armstrong placed a monument in the form of a piece of iron pipe at the point he determined to be the true location of the corner of the township. We will refer to this as the Armstrong point hereinafter. The Armstrong point was used regularly for many years and, by all accounts, "ha[d] a very good chain of record . . . ." Twice during the 1970s, land recordation certificates were filed "monumenting" the Armstrong point as the southwest corner of section 18, Ypsilanti Township. In 1976, William Lokey surveyed the property that is the focus of this dispute. Lokey did not use the Armstrong point as the starting point for his survey. In fact, the manner in which Lokey determined the starting point for his survey is unclear from the record before us. In any event, Lokey

* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

independently determined the southwest corner of section 18, Ypsilanti Township. We will refer to this as the Lokey point. Needless to say, the Lokey and Armstrong points do not correspond. It appears that no surveyors, other than Lokey himself, have used or relied upon the Lokey point as the starting point for any survey. In 1978, defendant purchased the property that is the subject of this dispute. Defendant's perception of her property is based on a survey conducted using the Lokey point as the starting point. In 1991, plaintiffs purchased the neighboring property. Their perception of the expanse of their property is based on a survey using the Armstrong point as the starting point. The surveys overlap. In late 1991, defendant erected a fence on the Lokey boundary line. Plaintiffs objected, contending that defendant had erected a fence on their property as described in the survey they had had done based on the Armstrong point. Plaintiffs brought suit. The circuit court ruled that the disruption of established boundary lines should be avoided, and proceeded to establish the Lokey monument as the true corner of section 18, Ypsilanti Township. The court failed to explain why it found surveys based on the Lokey point to be more "established" than surveys based on the Armstrong point. Plaintiffs have appealed. We review the lower court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions de novo. Gorte v Dep't of Transportation, 202 Mich App 161, 171; 507 NW2d 797 (1993). It has long been the rule that settled boundaries shall be allowed repose and shall not be disturbed. Daley v Gruber, 361 Mich 358, 362; 104 NW2d 807 (1960). As set forth in Adams v Hoover, 196 Mich App 646, 651-652; 493 NW2d 280 (1992), quoting 12 Am Jur 2d, Boundaries,

Download BENJAMIN J GALE V LORA STAMPER.pdf

Michigan Law