The couple believed that a mistake made in a 1965 tax sale deed had changed the description of their property’s boundary (AI image)
Kasner, who purchased their land at a tax sale in 2015, argued that the disputed strip had been used by previous owners of their property for decades. Firman and Kasner bought their parcel in 2015, while their neighbour, Antonio Santos, purchased the surrounding property in 2021. In 2023, the local sheriff was contacted after Santos allegedly changed the locks on the structure and demolished some interior walls. Firman and Kasner filed a lawsuit in February 2024, seeking to establish ownership of the disputed land and raising a trespass claim. The trial court subsequently ruled in Santos’s favour, finding that the couple’s original claim was barred by Michigan’s 15-year limitation period. However, the appeals court found that neither document identified the disputed 50-foot strip. Both also continued to use the same property description found in the 1965 deed.
Because of an error in a deed dating back to 1965, a couple in Michigan, United States, has lost a legal battle over a 50-foot-wide strip of land that they claimed belonged to their property.
The dispute involved neighbouring properties in Rose Township, Ogemaw County, according to court documents. The sheriff told the couple that the ownership dispute would have to be settled in court. Max W. Firman III and Dawn M. The disagreement began when Santos challenged the couple’s claim over the strip of land, which also contained a structure. Santos responded with counterclaims, including trespass and nuisance. The couple then amended their complaint, arguing that they and previous owners had acquired ownership through adverse possession or acquiescence. The couple relied on tax records and the existence of the structure as further evidence. But the court found that these records did not establish who had built or used the structure, when it was built, or whether the disputed land had been openly and continuously possessed for the required period.
However, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against them on Friday, finding that they had not provided enough evidence to establish ownership.