Yatczak v. Cloon
| Decision Date | 04 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 6.,6. |
| Citation | 313 Mich. 584,22 N.W.2d 112 |
| Parties | YATCZAK v. CLOON et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County; Thomas J. Landers, judge.
Action in ejectment by Katherine Yatczak against Rudolph F. Cloon and Esther R. Cloon. After commencement of the action, the last-named defendant filed a bill in chancery naming the plaintiff and the City of Wakefield as defendants, and at the same time defendants Cloon filed a motion to stay proceedings in the ejectment action until adjudication of the chancery suit. The trial court denied the motion to stay the proceedings. From the order denying a new trial and from the order denying a stay of proceedings, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
William G. Cloon, of Ironwood, for appellants.
William F. Pellow, of Bessemer, for appellee.
This litigation involves the ownership and right of possession to the approximate easterly four feet and eight inches of lots 3 and 6 of block 27 of the original plat of the village of Wakenfield, Gogebic county.
Plaintiff, as surviving spouse of Anton Yatczak, brought an action in ejectment against Rudolph F. Cloon and Esther R. Cloon for possession of the easterly four feet eight inches of lots 3 and 6 in the above-described property. Subsequently Esther R. Cloon, record owner of title of the involved premises, filed a bill in chancery naming plaintiff and the city of Wakefield defendants. At the same time defendants Rudolph F. Cloon and Esther R. Cloon filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the ejectment action until the adjudication of the chancery suit. The trial court denied the motion to stay proceedings. Defendants thereupon filed an answer in the ejectment proceedings and urge that Esther R. Cloon obtained title to the premises through a bona fide purchase without notice of any claim of adverse title; that Katherine Yatczak is estopped to assert or claim any right or title to the premises involved; and that she (Esther R. Cloon) and her grantors have had continuous possession of the disputed strip since 1911.
It is the claim of plaintiff that in September 1911, she and her husband purchased the west half of lots 1, 4 and 5 in block 27 of the original plat of the village of Wakefield; that prior to the purchase she and her husband examined the premises and were shown by their grantors a specific piece of land entirely surrounded by a fence; that the enclosed land included the property in dispute; that at the time plaintiff and her husband purchased the property there was a difference in the grade of the west one half of lots 1, 4 and 5 and the grade of lots 2, 3 and 6 which lots were lower and full of rocks and holes; that in 1911 there was a barn and outside toilet in the northwest corner of the premises which were partly situated on a portion of the premises in dispute; that these buildings remained there until 1921 at which time sewers were installed and the barn and toilet torn down by plaintiff and her husband; that from the date of the purchase of the land plaintiff and her husband cultivated and improved the land including the area in dispute by hauling away rocks and filling in and leveling the grade of the land; that plaintiff occupied said disputed area from the date of purchase until the fall of 1939; that from 1911 to 1921 practically no change was made in the grade of lots 2, 3 and 6; that plaintiff's property was much higher than the level of lots 2, 3 and 6; that the west lot line fence was standing in 1928 when plaintiff moved to Milwaukee; that when plaintiff returned from Milwaukee in 1935 the westerly line fence was down; that from 1926 to 1934 no improvements were made on the grade of lots 3, 6 and 7; that at the time defendant Esther R. Cloon purchased the property the grade of the easterly portion of lots 3 and 6 was lower than plaintiff's land; that plaintiff did not have any argument over the disputed area until 1939; that after a survey was made in 1939 defendant Rudolph F. Cloon occupied the disputed area and planted tulips therein and that in 1943 defendant Rudolph F. Cloon removed a clothes pole from the disputed area.
It is the claim of defendants that Thomas Ashlund acquired lots 6 and 7 and the west 100 feet of lot 3 in 1911 and in 1919 acquired title to the east 25 feet of lot 3; that in 1922 Ashlund and wife conveyed lots 3 and 6 and 7 to Edythe Rummel; that in 1924, 1925 and 1928 Edythe Rummel conveyed the west 110 feet of lots 3, 6 and 7 to the city of Wakefield; that in 1934 Thomas Ashlund and wife conveyed the east 40 feet of lots 3, 6 and 7 to the city of Wakefield; that in 1937 the city of Wakefield conveyed lots 3 and 6 to Esther R. Cloon; that at the time of said purchase she had no knowledge that plaintiff or her husband had any claim on the disputed area.
The cause came on for trial, a jury was impaneled and at the conclusion of all proofs, defendants made a motion for a directed verdict for the reason that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof showing title by adverse possession to the disputed area; that plaintiff is estopped to assert title to the disputed area; that the Ashlunds, Rummels and the city of Wakefield obtained title by adverse possession to the area in question; and that Esther R. Cloon was an innocent purchaser for value without notice of any claim of title by plaintiff and her husband.
The trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict. The jury returned a written verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connelly v. Buckingham
...is hostile and adverse possession may be established. Gregory v. Thorrez, 277 Mich. 197, 269 N.W. 142 (1936). Yatczak v. Cloon, 313 Mich. 584, 22 N.W.2d 112 (1946). Dubois v. Karazin, 315 Mich. 598, 24 N.W.2d 414 (1946). Walker v. Bowen, 333 Mich. 13, 52 N.W.2d 574 (1952). Such is the law i......
-
Davids v. Davis
...possession is hostile and adverse possession may be established. Gregory v Thorrez, 277 Mich 197; 269 NW 142 (1936); Yatczak v Cloon, 313 Mich 584; 22 NW2d 112 (1946); Dubois v Karazin, 315 Mich 598; 24 NW2d 414 (1946); Walker v Bowen, 333 Mich 13; 52 NW2d 574 (1952). Such is the law in eve......
-
Hamilton v. Weber, 65
...exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted for the statutory period, hostile, and under cover of claim of right.' Yatczak v. Cloon, 313 Mich. 584, 589-590, 22 N.W.2d 112, 114. 'Neither occupation in common with the public nor possession concurrent with that of the true owner is ever exclusive.' L......
-
Stevenson v. Aalto
...735; Cotton v. McClatchey, 277 Mich. 109, 114, 268 N.W. 894; Warner v. Noble, 286 Mich. 654, 660, 282 N.W. 855; and Yatczak v. Cloon, 313 Mich. 584, 589, 22 N.W.2d 112. The elements of adverse possession must be established by clear and cogent proof. Barley v. Fisher, 267 Mich. 450, 255 N.W......