A Michigan appeals court has revived a bitter property dispute between two Bender siblings, ruling that a 1991 foreclosure judgment did not bar Frederick and Susan Bender from claiming a 0.13-acre strip of land. The court sided with the plaintiffs on the procedural issue, overturning the trial court's rejection of their boundary claim.
The conflict began in August and September 2022, when David and Jean Bender ploughed the landscaped strip adjacent to Frederick and Susan's home. Frederick and Susan argued their family had maintained the area for years, a practice dating back to when one of Frederick's parents owned the property. They contended that David and Jean had accepted this arrangement, effectively recognizing the boundary in their favor. David and Jean, who did not appear at the trial, argued they had continued to use the land to enter and exit their property.
The trial court had previously rejected the boundary claim, citing the 1991 foreclosure ruling that barred certain claims over mortgaged land. However, the appeals panel found the 1991 case addressed foreclosure rights, not property boundaries. The judges noted the earlier judgment never examined whether David and Jean had accepted the boundary claimed by Frederick and Susan. Consequently, the trial court erred in relying on that old decision to dismiss the new claim.
Despite the procedural win, Frederick and Susan already secured a monetary victory. The trial court awarded them $5,364.44 in damages for trespass and waste, a ruling the appeals court upheld. The higher court also rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the cancellation of a default judgment against David and Jean, which had been entered on March 14, 2023, due to their failure to respond. The trial judge accepted the defendants' explanation, citing medical issues and a misunderstanding of the deadline.
The case now heads back to the trial court for further proceedings on the actual boundary claim. Frederick and Susan will have the opportunity to present evidence that David and Jean accepted the disputed boundary through long-term use. The outcome will determine whether the 0.13-acre strip officially becomes part of Frederick and Susan's property.