Kranz v. Terrill, Docket No. 146436.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 146436.,COA No. 305198.
• Citation: 831 N.W.2d 238,494 Mich. 860
• Parties: Sally J. KRANZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, and Brett Stamats and Amy J. Stamats, Plaintiffs, v. Roger D. TERRILL and Darlene G. Terrill, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

494 Mich. 860

831 N.W.2d 238

Sally J. KRANZ, Plaintiff–Appellant,

and

Brett Stamats and Amy J. Stamats, Plaintiffs,

v.Roger D. TERRILL and Darlene G. Terrill, Defendants–Appellees.

Docket No. 146436.

COA No. 305198.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 5, 2013.

Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 4214894.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE those portions of the Court of Appeals and Lenawee Circuit Court judgments holding that the defendants established a prescriptive easement to construct and maintain a dock at the terminus of the easement, and to moor boats to the dock. The affidavit of the plaintiff-appellant's predecessor in interest averred that from 1990 until 2003, when she and her husband sold Lot 1 to the plaintiff-appellant, “any use of a dock or boat moorings on or at the easement was done with our permission and consent.” We REMAND this case to the Lenawee Circuit Court for further consideration in light of this affidavit and this Court's decision in Fractional School Dist. No. 9 in Waterford and Pontiac Twps, Oakland Cty. v. Beardslee, 248 Mich. 112, 116, 226 N.W. 867 (1929) (holding that a period of permissive occupancy cannot be tacked onto a period of hostile occupancy, to show adverse possession).