INDEX OF FORMS

Form A. Verified Complaint with Statement of Title (action by party

attempting to acquire title by adverse possession or
acquiescence).
Form B. Verified Complaint with Statement of Title (action by party
attempting to retain record title).
Form C. Lis Pendens
Form D. Statement of Title.
FORM A [ACTION BY PARTY ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE TITLE BY ADVERSE
POSSESSION OR ACQUIESCENCE]
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
ROBERT HOMEOWNER and
EILEEN HOMEOWNER, husband
and wife,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JAMES NEIGHBOR and
WENDIE NEIGHBOR, husband and wife,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________/
BUTZEL LONG
By: Patrick A. Karbowski (P40577)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
100 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 258-1616
______________________________________________/
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Jurisdictional Allegations
Plaintiffs, Robert Homeowner and Eileen Homeowner, husband and wife (Plaintiffs), by their
attorneys, Butzel Long, for their Complaint against Defendants James Neighbor and Wendie Neighbor,
husband and wife (Defendants), state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs, Robert Homeowner and Eileen Homeowner, husband and wife, (Plaintiffs) are
residents of Oakland County, Michigan.
2. Defendants James Neighbor and Wendie Neighbor, husband and wife ("Defendants") are
residents of Oakland County, Michigan.
3. The subject matter of this litigation is certain real property located at 1234 Elm Street,
Adversarial Heights, Michigan, which is located in Oakland County, Michigan (the Property or
Plaintiffs Property -- See also, Statement of Title, attached), more particularly, described as follows:
Lot 123, Adversarial Heights Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in
Liber 16333, Page 34, 34A through 34F of Plats, Oakland County Records.
4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to MCL 600.605 (subject matter jurisdiction),
MCL 600.701 (personal jurisdiction) and MCL 600.751 (in rem jurisdiction).
General Allegations
5. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Complaint as if fully
repeated in this paragraph 5.
6. On or about October 3, 1987, Plaintiffs purchased the Property in fee simple absolute from
Andrew Seller and Judith Seller (Plaintiffs Grantors).
7. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs Grantors held title to the Property in fee simple
absolute for approximately nine and one-half years (April 19, 1978) before conveying the Property to
Plaintiffs.
8. Together, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Grantors have held title to Plaintiffs Property in fee simple
absolute for over fifteen years.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendants own Lot 124 of Adversarial Heights Subdivision as
recorded in Liber 16633, Page 34, 34A through 34F of Plats, Oakland County Records (Defendants
Property).
10. Lot 124 is contiguous to the northerly boundary of Plaintiffs' Property.
11. Upon information and belief, sometime between August 1 and August 15, 1993, Defendants
obtained a survey of Defendants Property which purportedly showed that Defendants Property actually
extended several feet into the northerly portion of Plaintiffs Property. The area in dispute includes a
triangular area approximately 40 square feet in Plaintiffs sideyard, including Plaintiffs only exterior
means of ingress and egress to Plaintiffs backyard and a rectangular area of approximately 125 square
feet in Plaintiffs backyard. Plaintiffs backyard is fully enclosed by a cyclone fence and the southern wall
of Defendants garage, and has been so enclosed and used exclusively by Plaintiffs and their predecessors
in title for at least 21 years. The area in dispute is shown in the diagram attached as Exhibit A.
12. Since purchasing the Property in 1987, Plaintiffs acts of ownership relative to the northerly
portion of Plaintiffs Property have included, by way of example and not limitation, building a landscaped
English style garden in the backyard, utilizing an existing dog run in the side yard (for storage), and
utilizing an existing cyclone fence with a gate which provides the only exterior access to Plaintiffs
backyard. See, photographs attached as Exhibits A, B, C and D which also show a yellow rope
indicating the approximate point of the boundary as alleged by Defendants.
13. On or about October, 1993 and subsequent to obtaining their survey, Defendants advised
Plaintiffs that Defendants disputed Plaintiffs right to use and possess the northerly portion of Plaintiffs
Property and further advised Plaintiffs that in the spring of 1994, Defendants would seek to preclude
Plaintiffs from using and possessing the northerly portion of the Property by one or more of the following
means:
a. by placing a six-foot fence directly on the alleged boundary as shown in Defendants survey,
thereby eliminating Plaintiffs only exterior access to their backyard and blocking all but
approximately two feet of Plaintiffs kitchen window, which is the only window on the
northerly side of Plaintiffs house (see, Exhibit B which shows the kitchen window and the
existing four foot high fence around the dog run Defendants fence would extend another
two feet blocking the window in the photograph);
b. by extending the six-foot fence inside Plaintiffs existing cyclone fenced backyard, bisecting
the backyard from east to west for the purpose of occupying approximately 125 square feet of
Plaintiffs property at the northern boundary, destroying a substantial portion of Plaintiffs
perennial garden;
c. by pouring concrete over the entire northerly portion of Plaintiffs Property to Plaintiffs
backyard covering approximately 40 square feet, for the purpose of creating additional
driveway space so that Defendants would have more room for their home business of
repairing and refurbishing foreign automobiles;
d. by destroying the existing dog run because Defendants fence will bisect the dog run; to
install the fence Defendants will have to break up the 3 concrete base of the dog run and
remove a substantial portion of the existing fencing around the enclosure, in effect destroying
the enclosure and causing Plaintiffs the expense of removing remaining concrete floor and
fencing, and
e. changing the existing grade of Defendants driveway and, upon information and belief,
causing water to run off into Plaintiffs property and negatively impact the foundation of
Plaintiffs' house.
14. In early spring 1994 Plaintiffs repeatedly requested a meeting with Defendants to determine if
some amicable resolution was possible to the parties' dispute. Defendants were generally unavailable for a
meeting until April 10, 1994.
15. The parties did meet on April 10, 1994 and Defendants advised Plaintiffs that within thirty
(30) days Defendants would implement their plans as detailed in paragraph 13 above.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendants have or intend to immediately obtain a building
permit relative to their plans, and immediately thereafter begin construction on the northerly portion of
Plaintiffs Property. On April 11, 1994, Defendants and representatives of a contractor began measuring
the northern boundary of Plaintiffs Property, on information and belief, for the erection of a fence.
17. Injuries to Plaintiffs from the above alleged acts and threatened acts of Defendants are
irreparable and Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law with respect to such injuries.
Count I -Adverse Possession
18. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint as if fully
repeated in this paragraph 18.
19. Upon information and belief, for a continuous period of more than 15 years before bringing
this action, Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have used, occupied and claimed ownership of all or
part of the northerly portion of the Property as part and parcel of Lot 123 and, if the northerly portion of
the Property is not part and parcel of Lot 123, Plaintiffs claim title to the northerly portion of the Property
under their deed dated October 13, 1987; and by virtue of the fact that their use and possession of the
northerly portion of the Property from that date, tacked with the use and possession of Plaintiffs
Grantors, has been actual, continuous, visible, notorious and hostile to Defendants claims to the northerly
portion of the Property.
Count II -Acquiescence
20. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraph 1 through 19 of this Complaint as if fully
repeated in this paragraph 20. To the extent that allegations contained in this Count II are inconsistent
with any other allegations contained in this Complaint, the allegations contained in this Count II are made
in the alternative.
21. Upon information and belief, certain errors and inaccuracies exist in the recorded plat and/or
existing surveys relative to the boundary line between Lot 123 and 124 in that all or part of the northerly
portion of Plaintiffs Property as used and possessed by Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title has
always been used, considered and relied on as the boundary line between Lot 123 and 124.
22. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs predecessors in title, as well as Defendants and their
predecessors in title, have always accepted, agreed, recognized and acquiesced that all or part of the
northerly portion of the Property as used and possessed by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Grantors was the real
and actual boundary between Lot 123 and 124, and that said boundary line has existed, upon information
and belief, for more than 15 years before Plaintiff brought this action, and was never disputed by
Defendants until sometime after August 31, 1993.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant the following relief as to Count I
and/or Count II:
A. That title of the Property, including the northerly portion of the property be forever quieted in
Plaintiffs;
B. That this Court find that any interest Defendants may have had to the northerly portion of the
Property has been cut off by adverse possession by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Grantors for a
period of more than 15 years, and/or by the acquiescence of Defendants and their
predecessors in title, and that any claims of Defendants to the Property, including the
northerly portion of the Property, are now illegal and void;
C. That this Court adjudge that Defendants and any and all persons claiming under them, have
no right, title or interest in and to the Property or any part thereof, including the northerly
portion of the Property, and that Plaintiffs shall have leave to cause such Judgment to be
recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Oakland County, Michigan;
D. That this Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,
representatives, family, guests, invitees, licensees, contractors, tenants, employees, successors
or assigns (Defendants), or anyone acting in concert with Defendants, from interfering with
Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of Lot 123, including the disputed northerly portion of Lot 123,
and further enjoining Defendants from entering upon, changing (including changing the
existing grade to Defendants driveway) or utilizing in any way the disputed northerly portion
of Lot 123 in any way other than those uses of said Property as may have existed as of the
date of the filing of Plaintiffs Verified Complaint; and,
E. That Plaintiffs may have whatever other and further or different relief as this Court deems
lawful and proper.
Count III -Easement
23. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraph 1 through 22 of this Complaint as if fully
repeated in this paragraph 23. To the extent that allegations contained in this Count III are inconsistent
with any other allegations contained in this Complaint, the allegations contained in this Count III are
made in the alternative.
24. Plaintiffs have an easement either by prescription, necessity, implication or grant over all or
part of the northerly portion of the Property in that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Grantors have used the
northerly portion of the Property as the only exterior means of ingress and egress to the backyard of the
Property .
25. Defendants refuse to recognize Plaintiffs easement and are attempting to prevent Plaintiffs
from using the northerly portion of the Property thereby causing Plaintiffs irreparable injury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant the following relief as to Count III:
A. That Plaintiffs be decreed by Judgment of this Court to have an easement for ingress and
egress to their backyard by prescription, necessity, implication or grant to all or part of the
disputed northerly portion of the Property and that Plaintiffs shall have leave to cause such
Judgment to be recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Oakland County, Michigan;
B. That Defendants be permanently enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs quiet enjoyment or
their easement upon all or part of the disputed northerly portion of the Property; and,
C. That Plaintiffs may have whatever other and further or different relief as this Court deems
lawful and proper.
Count IV -Nuisance
26. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraph 1 through 25 of this Complaint as if fully
repeated in this paragraph 26. To the extent that allegations contained in this Count IV are inconsistent
with any other allegations contained in this Complaint, the allegations contained in this Count IV are
made in the alternative.
27. Defendants have represented to Plaintiffs that Defendants will change the existing grade on
Defendants driveway.
28. Upon information and belief, this change in the existing grade will cause water to run off into
Plaintiffs Property and negatively impact the foundation of Plaintiffs house.
29. By reason of Defendants expressed intent to change the grade of the properties Plaintiffs'
Property will be irreparably harmed in that the presently sound foundation of Plaintiffs home may
become unsound as a result of water run off from Defendants Property.
30. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants will execute their plan to change the
grade of the Property and, upon information and belief, thereby cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court grant the following relief
A. That Defendants be permanently enjoined from changing the existing grade on the southerly
portion of Defendants Property and/or the northerly portion of Plaintiffs Property; and,
B. That Plaintiffs may have whatever other and further or different relief as this Court deems
lawful and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
BUTZEL LONG
By: _____________________________
Patrick A. Karbowski (P40577)
100 Bloomfield Hills Parkway
Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
(248) 258-1616
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: April 2, 2001
[VERIFICATION PAGE TO FOLLOW]
VERIFICATION
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND )
Robert Homeowner and Eileen Homeowner, being duly sworn say: We are the Plaintiffs to the
above encaptioned lawsuit. We have read the above Verified Complaint and the factual statements
contained in Plaintiffs Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and
Plaintiffs Briefs in Support of said Motions and know the contents of these documents to be true of our
own knowledge, except those matters stated to be on information and belief, which we believe to be true.
_______________________________
Robert Homeowner
_______________________________
Eileen Homeowner
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
:ss
COUNTY OF OAKLAND )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of April, 1994 by Robert
Homeowner and Eileen Homeowner, who are known to me, or who presented sufficient evidence of
identity to me.
________________________________________________
, Notary Public
__________________ County, _______________________
My commission expires: ____________________________