Sellers intent to sell only part of the parcel

[Whoops2u]

- 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 ?

What "burden"? If someone is on my land who I don't want there, I ask them to leave. If they don't, depending on the circumstances, I eject them or have a court eject them.

If you have to sue to eject them at some point you put down the sale documents and deed to prove you have the right to keep the other person off the land. Then, they have to show they have a right to be there. The difficult part for them is that the only proof you are saying is that the other person "thought" the line was different. I don't know how he gets that evidence in because of the parol evidence rule because what he "thought" was different was precisely described in a writing intended to be the complete sale agreement that alters that agreement. He will probably be able to introduce the fact you let him stay there for years as evidence of both of your intents in regards to the land.

What other things can he argue about intent that was not prior to or during closing and differs from the written documents? The more things he can add here, the more likely he can find success. For me, it would take a lot of evidence of a different intent to overcome clearly written documents.

 

[justalayman]

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.

Agreement doesn’t though.

Acquiescence covers several different situations. I posted the one that applies.

 

[justalayman]

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.

Agreement doesn’t though

What "burden"? If someone is on my land who I don't want there, I ask them to leave. If they don't, depending on the circumstances, I eject them or have a court eject them.

If you have to sue to eject them at some point you put down the sale documents and deed to prove you have the right to keep the other person off the land. Then, they have to show they have a right to be there. The difficult part for them is that the only proof you are saying is that the other person "thought" the line was different. I don't know how he gets that evidence in because of the parol evidence rule because what he "thought" was different was precisely described in a writing intended to be the complete sale agreement that alters that agreement. He will probably be able to introduce the fact you let him stay there for years as evidence of both of your intents in regards to the land.

What other things can he argue about intent that was not prior to or during closing and differs from the written documents? The more things he can add here, the more likely he can find success. For me, it would take a lot of evidence of a different intent to overcome clearly written documents.

you need to do some research on Michigan real estate law.

 

[svansingel]

so the seller can just say there was an agreement and not provide any evidence to prove it, and he can win the settlement?
At the same time the current owner has everything in her name ?
That seems to open the possibility that anyone can just Lie and say there was an agreement and change all legal documentation.

 

[svansingel]

Does the Burden of prof fall on the Seller to Prove there was intend? Or can he just simply say it was agreed upon?
If there is nothing in writing excluding the barn from the sale, how can he just claim it was on intended ?

 

[justalayman]

Does the Burden of prof fall on the Seller to Prove there was intend? Or can he just simply say it was agreed upon?
If there is nothing in writing excluding the barn from the sale, how can he just claim it was on intended ?

There was not only claimed intent but apparent agreement. The seller has continued to use the barn for, apparently, 4-5 years with no disapproval from the buyer.

I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk on the sellers side. What I’m saying is this isn’t likely to be a simple resolution. Michigan land law on boundary issues is complex

 

[svansingel]

I guess our case it, the Seller falsely misrepresented where the property line after the sale. After the survey was complete current owner has tried to take legal action without making any headway. Since the current owners attorney only wrote letters to the other attorneys, the seller has had access to the barn.
So, is it probable that the current owner will loose the case simply because the seller lied about the property line and has been using it?
Where does it take in account that current owner has all legal documentation that the entire land for Parcel is Hers?

 

[Whoops2u]

Agreement doesn’t though

you need to do some research on Michigan real estate law.

You'll have to guide me a bit. What part of what I wrote do you disagree with?

 

[svansingel]

I guess Im afraid current owner is going to loose the land and barn, simply because he lied where the property line was and it took a while for her to find out.
I still believe the burden is on the Seller to move the property before the sale, or it is "as is" agreement. Without any written instructions or agreement how can his so called "intent" hold up?

 

[justalayman]

I guess Im afraid current owner is going to loose the land and barn, simply because he lied where the property line was and it took a while for her to find out.
I still believe the burden is on the Seller to move the property before the sale, or it is "as is" agreement. Without any written instructions or agreement how can his so called "intent" hold up?

I won’t agree that either party has won. I’m just saying that the facts as presented don’t make for an easy conclusion. Both parties have a seemingly valid argument and since Michigan does specifically allow lot lines to be settled by agreement or acquiescence, buyer caused themselves a lot of problems but not having their property surveyed, or at least having a very good understanding of where the boundary lines were when they entered into this deal and defending what they understood to be their property.

Your argument of the seller needed to move the lot line prior to the sale is contrary to legal decisions in Michigan law that allow for boundary by agreement and boundary by acquiescence. They should have redrawn the lots but they didn’t.

In fact there are times lots cannot be reconfigured due to zoning limitations. That doesn’t preclude an informal division from being agreed to and that informal redrawing of the lines is a boundary by agreement and can be legally enforceable.

 

[FarmerJ]

So did a attorney ever suggest the person who has parked the camper and says the barn was excluded to use your states laws to give that other party proper written notice to move off that land along with a copy of the current survey ? in the end with real estate every thing has to be in writing , No exception , The lady who claims the barn is hers should have had a survey done before selling and then would have been able to make sure that the lot lines were legally changed so this would not have been a issue. SO during the closing process were you aware that she wanted to keep that barn and the land where it sits ? ( gotta ask , so does that barn have water or electric or gas line that are connected to the houses utilities ? )

 

[justalayman]

So did a attorney ever suggest the person who has parked the camper and says the barn was excluded to use your states laws to give that other party proper written notice to move off that land along with a copy of the current survey ? in the end with real estate every thing has to be in writing , No exception , The lady who claims the barn is hers should have had a survey done before selling and then would have been able to make sure that the lot lines were legally changed so this would not have been a issue. SO during the closing process were you aware that she wanted to keep that barn and the land where it sits ? ( gotta ask , so does that barn have water or electric or gas line that are connected to the houses utilities ? )

No farmerj, not everything has to be in writing. As is often said, actions speak louder than words. Think about it: has there ever been a claim of adverse possession based on written words?

 

[HRZ]

just out of curiosity what kind of warranty did the seller give buyer as to the deed in all this...and what does the title insurance firm have to say in writing about anything?

 

[svansingel]

ok here is the answer to the Deed: Its a warranty deed. That is the response from the buyer. Not sure is that was what you were asking.

 

[HRZ]

Well the seller warrants the correctness of the deed and one should put heat on the seller to defend his own deed ?

there are different kinds of warranty but here we are only looking to seller to defend the deed as to recent issues which arose under his own watch not something back to statehood