![]() ![]() Plaintiff testified that defendant pointed out a “candy-cane” shaped rod in the ground near the lake. Before closing on the sale, defendant walked the lot with plaintiff, showing her the boundary lines, including the now relevant boundary line between lots 66 and 67. ![]() In 2005, defendant sold lots 65 and 66 to plaintiff but retained lot 67 for herself. Lot 67 is east of, and adjacent to, lot 66. In 2001, defendant purchased lots 65, 66, and 67, and she lived in a house located on lots 65 and 66. FACTS The parties dispute the location of the boundary line between lots 66 and 67 of the Lagoon Beach Subdivision. The trial court also ruled in plaintiff’s favor on defendant’s counterclaims for nuisance, harassment, and trespass. Defendant appeals by right the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff on her claim of acquiescence and her claim that defendant Wynne Winslow (defendant) violated deed restrictions. ![]() Before: MARKEY, P.J., and OWENS and BOONSTRA, JJ. 12-008936-CH Defendant/Cross PlaintiffAppellant. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAN VANSTEENHOUSE, UNPUBLISHED JPlaintiff/Cross Defendant-Appellee, v WYNNE WINSLOW f/k/a WYNNE DOWNING, No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |