Sellers intent to sell only part of the parcel

[Whoops2u]

How do we argue against his claim that he thought the property line was in a different place ?
.

You probably don't need to. The other guy gets on the stand and when he starts to talk about what he thought, your attorney will dramatically jump up and shout "objection"! The judge will hammer down the gavel and say "sustained!" and everyone will rip off his clothes and do the conga out the courthouse doors.

Realistically, the discussion on statute of frauds, parol evidence and the claim of what his intent was will be hashed out in a hearing before trial.

 

[quincy]

Apparently the survey was done after the sale, HRZ.

 

[svansingel]

The seller owned both parcels or Lots: lot A small no building actual and lot B larger with House and Barn on it Actual.
He sold Lot B and states the intention was he is keeping the Barn and land.
After the sale, the seller used and occupied the Barn because he did not intend to sell it or land under it.
The Seller also had a camper on the land that he states he did not sell.
The Current owner found out two years after the sale where property line actually was and that her parcel includes 90% of the barn.
The current owner has been working with lawyers to resolve the matter however, the seller just claims he did not intend to sell that part of the land.

 

[svansingel]

The seller owned both parcels or Lots: lot A small no building actual and lot B larger with House and Barn on it Actual.
He sold Lot B and states the intention was he is keeping the Barn and land.
After the sale, the seller used and occupied the Barn because he did not intend to sell it or land under it.
The Seller also had a camper on the land that he states he did not sell.
The Current owner found out two years after the sale where property line actually was and that her parcel includes 90% of the barn.
The current owner has been working with lawyers to resolve the matter however, the seller just claims he did not intend to sell that part of the land.

 

[HRZ]

how does one sell 90% of a barn ....

To me the buyer is wise to leave it in hands of her paid counsel ...and hope they have a nasty bite as well as a loud bark.

I sure would be reluctant to,have my adversary parked on my lands and using what is essentially my barn for the duration of a long contest unless I was being well paid each month ...which I doubt .

 

[justalayman]

The problem is that in Michigan a property line can be any line agreed to by the parties. Michigan uses the term boundary by acquiescence. If she was under the understanding she was not buying them section with the barn and she acted as such, she may have already lost the battle.

 

[HRZ]

That's not quite how I read the three examples of boundaries by acquiescence in the literature and this version of the post does not describe some specific agreement as to an alternate property line anyplace ...mere confusion does not rise to acquiescence ...but hopefully the buyer has good attorney

 

[LdiJ]

That's not quite how I read the three examples of boundaries by acquiescence in the literature and this version of the post does not describe some specific agreement as to an alternate property line anyplace ...mere confusion does not rise to acquiescence ...but hopefully the buyer has good attorney

Unless the sale of the property did not go through a proper closing, I think that we would have to assume that the closing documents and the resulting deed would specifically outline the property that was being purchased.

 

[justalayman]

What confusion? If seller said I’m not selling the barn and the land under it and the buyer says ok, sounds great to me, where is the confusion


Didn’t op state seller said they weren’t selling the barn and the land under it?


Regardless, acquiescence can allow a lot of things and yes, a person being confused as to where the property line is and acting if it is in a different place can allow for the boundary line to be adjusted to meet the acquiesced placement.


Was this what you read by chance?


Acquiescence arising from an intention to deed to a marked boundary is the final theory. When a boundary line has been treated by adjoining parties as the true line over a significant time period, when one of the involved parcels is deeded to another party, it is presumed that the grantor means to transfer the land from that recognized boundary line. The acquiesced line continues to be the one intended to be recognized in future transfers.

If the agreement was the seller was not selling the barn and land it sets upon, then that describes the op’s situation perfectly.

 

[HRZ]

So where is the clear agreement not to deed the barn ? A barn may not be a marked boundary...and a year or so may not be a significant time in MI

 

[FarmerJ]

Current owner might consider using a attorney to address this for them if they are thinking they want this done with out error.

 

[HRZ]

OP says buyer has counsel...I sure hope that is the case ...and buyer wants a pit bull on RE matters turned lose . ..the family friend lawyer may NOT be the prudent choice here .

 

[HRZ]

Where is 15 years ?




Acquiescence requires the same elements as adverse possession, except the possession need not be hostile or without permission. Walters v Snyder, 225 Mich App 219, 224; 570 NW2d 301 (1997). In addition, the burden of proof to show acquiescence is by preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 223.

 

[svansingel]

There is nothing in writing about the actual boundaries or if the Barn was part of the sale.
The current owner was told she was buying the Parcel with the House on it.
The Seller did and is using the barn and simply claiming he did not intend to sell the barn.
The current owner has sought out Legal advice however some have stated that both parties just Agreed to the Terms of the land.
- The seller has not changed his property lines since he purchased it in 2002.
- He sold the Parcel to the current owner in 2013.
- He has been using the barn and had a camper on the land
- When the current owner found out the actual property line, she had it surveyed. The survey is the same as the Parcel and Deed description.
- Current owner hired a lawyer to help with the matter. only action items attorney did was send letters to Sellers attorney.
- Seller just states did not intend to sell barn and will not leave.
- Current owner has asked seller remove himself from the land.
- Seller had three trailers parked on the lot that he claims its his, however the city reconizes its the current owners land and sent letter that Trailers are moved or current owner will be fined.
- Current Owner then had the trailers towed away and witnessed by state police.
- Sellers lawyer now threaten to take current owner to court and get a PPO against her for Harassment

- We are going to gather as much info as we can, meet the new attorney and see if we can make a case that he actually sold the Parcel thats in her Name.

- I have a hard time that just because he Lied about the property line and left the burden on the current owner to move the line ?
- Where does it become the Sellers burden to prove he did not sell the barn or land ?


Thank you very much

 

[LdiJ]

She has an attorney. She needs to be working with her attorney on this. Obviously the letters were not enough.