CAST YOUR VOTE! LOVE THY NEIGHBOR? OR HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW? IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ONTONAGON COUNTY STATE OF MICHIGAN Jack L Herronen, DBA Case No. 13 34 CH Hillside Lodge Properties and /or The Jack L Herronen Revocable Living Trust, Plaintiff, VS. ACTION TO QUIET TITLE James and Mary Noskowiak, Defendants. -------------------------------------- STATEMENT OF CASE The Defendants willingly accepted a warranty deed with a fictitious legal description over the warning of the lawyer who drafted it, then built a new home without first getting a survey. Recently, they got a survey where the surveyor “guessed” at where he thought the boundary lines should go; 76.7-feet onto land that the Plaintiff has occupied for over 16 years, leaving Plaintiff a 23.5-foot strip of land; and have blocked Plaintiff’s driveway with a backhoe. Plaintiff’s survey shows the Defendants’ new home to be encroaching 22+feet onto his property and asks this Honorable Court to grant him the relief requested. JURISDICTIION Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to MCL 600.2932; MSA 27A.2932, MCL 600.5821. PARTIES-PLAINTIFF Jack L Herronen is a private citizen of the State of Michigan whose current address is N-11431 Lake Rd, PO Box 12, Ironwood, Michigan 49938. PARTIES-DEFENDANTS James and Mary Noskowiak are private citizens of the State of Wisconsin whose current address is N 6405 Neva Lake Rd. Deerbrook Wi 54424. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. In 1929 the Bergland School Board sold ¾ of a mile of property, between the north shore of Lake Gogebic and US Hwy 28 in Bergland Michigan to Eino Kaukola. 2. Mr. Kaukola had the property surveyed and began selling off parcels. There is no recorded survey to be found and the lots were not platted. 3. The legal descriptions were poorly written and they got worse over time to the point of actually being incorrect. See attached legal descriptions: Exhibits E 1-8. 4. Jack L Herronen; DBA Hillside Lodge Properties purchased the subject property on a land contract dated Nov. 15, 1996, from the Trust of J. Peter Soderberg and has maintained the now contested property ever since. See attached Land Contract; Exhibit A. 5. The land contract was paid and Mr. Soderberg issued a quit claim/Trustee’s Deed to the Plaintiff on or about April 6, 2001. See attached Trustee’s Deed; Exhibit B, (Document Number 201000416). 6. The subject property is located in Bergland Township, Ontonagon County, and State of Michigan, legally described as; Starting at a point Eleven Hundred Fifty-five (1155) feet E* from the west line of Government Lot Four (4), Section Five (5) Township Forty-eight (48) North of Range Forty-two (42) West, on the south side of the Duluth South Shore & Atlantic Railway; Thence running northwest Two Hundred Fifty (250) feet more or less and in a square angle from said Railway to the south side of the present Michigan State Highway Number Twenty-eight (28); Thence One Hundred (100) feet Northeast along said Highway; Thence Southwest Two Hundred Ninety (290) feet more or less to the shore of Lake Gogebic; Thence One Hundred (100) feet Southwest along said Lake Shore; Thence Forty (40) feet more or less northwest to the starting point. Excepting and reserving to the party of the first part, his heirs, and assigns, All reservations of Mineral, Gas, Oil, Water Rights, as is contained in prior deeds on record in the chain of title. 7. * The directional indicator “east” from the above legal description was omitted from the original Kaukola/Haapala Deed recorded in Liber 23 page 308. See Haapala Deed; attached hereto; Exhibit E-2. 8. Someone inserted, in pencil, the word “Northeast” on the above-recorded Haapala Deed. Hence “Northeast” has been incorrectly parroted in all subsequent deeds including the current Soderberg Trustee’s Deed to Hillside Lodge Properties (Document No. 201000416 Ontonagon Register of Deeds). 9. Because the subject property has a legally described peninsula, which juts out into the lake, described above as being; “Thence One Hundred (100) feet Southwest along said Lake Shore: Thence Forty (40) feet more or less northwest to the starting point”, which is still there to this day. It is located by traveling 1155-ft “east” from the Point of beginning thence northerly at right angles to the railway to the starting point on the shore; 5 of the other 6 neighboring legal descriptions; state “east” as well. Indicating that the correct directional indicator is “east”. See attached Timberline survey exhibit D-1. 10. Further, the abbreviated legal description on the 1996 winter tax bill from Bergland Township clearly states “1155’ E of…” See attached Soderberg 1996 Bergland Township tax bill; Exhibit H. 11. The only map of Government Lot 4 on file at the Ontonagon County Department of Equalization is a crudely drawn depiction of where the Bergland Assessor attempted to place the several parcels and assign parcel ID numbers to them. This map shows the above peninsula jutting out into Lake Gogebic clearly owned by J. Peter Soderberg. See Equalization Map attached hereto; Exhibit F-2. 12. As demonstrated by the attached survey, there are 7 parcels east of the now Mc Dermott parcel which line up boundary to boundary provided that each parcel travels; “east” (the specified number of feet), thence northerly at right angle to the railway, to a point on the lake shore”. See attached Timberline Land Surveying, Map & survey; Exhibit D-1. 13. On June 4, 1999, the Noskowiaks purchased the 2 adjoining parcels to the west of the Plaintiff’s property from Dennis Erickson. The legal description on this deed is fictitious/ does not correspond to any of the previously recorded deeds. All previous deeds state to go “east’ from the “intersection” then at right angles to the railway. This deed says to go “north” instead of right angles. See Warranty Deed; Exhibit C. Going at right angle puts old Erickson cabin on Plaintiff’s property. 14. The lawyer who prepared Noskowiak’s deed included the following disclaimer. CAUTION: Preparation of a deed by an attorney does not assure good title unless an Abstract search, opinion, and tax review are performed. See above Exhibit C. 15. Notwithstanding, beginning in 1999, The Defendants began clearing the land and hauling in fill dirt. They backfilled to the historical boundary 63-feet west of their house and placed large landscaping stones to stake their claim; very close to where the Timberline Land Surveying maps marks that border. See D-2 at 955-ft tangent. 16. Sometime in 2003 or 2004, the Defendants tore down the old cabin and built a new house without first getting a survey. The edge of the house appears to line up with a “notch” in Plaintiff’s peninsula. Which is where Erickson had told both parties where he thought the boundary was. 17. Finally in late summer of 2012 the Defendants got a survey. Because the Noskowiaks’ legal descriptions are not only poorly written but also incorrect, their surveyor admitted that he had to “interpret” them in order to do his survey. See Coleman Engineering response letter attached hereto; Exhibit G-3 (response to Item 7). 18. Instead of going east from the intersection at the section line, Noskowiak’s surveyor, Coleman Engineering elected to “interpret” and travel “northeast” along the railway instead. In so doing, the Coleman survey kicks Noskowiak’s eastern boundary approximately 76.7 feet onto Plaintiff’s property, confiscating Plaintiff’s peninsula, leaving him a 23.5-foot strip and creating a 50- foot gap between the property boundaries elsewhere in Government Lot 4. 19. The Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff a copy of the Coleman Engineering survey, telling Plaintiff to, “get his own (blanking) survey”, then blocked Plaintiff’s driveway with a backhoe, and have been combative to the point Plaintiff called the Sheriff twice, to date. 20. Plaintiff took the Defendants’ advice and got a survey that shows the Noskowiak’s built their home/boathouse 22 + feet onto Plaintiff’s property. See Timberline Land Surveying survey, Exhibit D 1-2. 21. The value of the 22 + feet of land encroached upon by the Defendants is approximately $50,000. Appraisal to be ordered upon findings of the Court. 22. The Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to resolve the conflict without civilized reply. LEGAL CLAIMS 23. Plaintiff has a right to have this Court determine his rights pursuant to MCL 600.2932; MSA 27A.2932, MCR 3.411. 24. After 15 years of possession, Plaintiff has a right to the conflicted property under the theory of Adverse Possession, MCL 600.5821 Recovery of land; regardless of surveyor’s opinions, property legal descriptions or the tinker’s dam. His claim is superior. 25. The Noskowiaks ignored the law of Caveat Emptor; let the buyer beware (or take care). Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108, 116, 3.SCt, 28 L. Ed. 86. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition. Here the Defendants ignored the lawyer’s warning on the deed they purchased and built a house on someone else’s property without getting a survey first; and are liable for the consequences thereof. 26. It is without question that the actions of these Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to the quiet enjoyment of his property, trespassed and intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s property rights. Plaintiff has the right to recover both compensatory and punitive damages for injury whether to his person or property, or rights, through the unlawful act or omission of another. 27. As demonstrated by the evidence above, Defendants’ new house encroaches upon Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff has the right to ask this Court to order the Defendants to remove the structure and/or the right to be compensated for the loss of his property, MCR 3.411. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff asks the Court for the following relief; 1. A judgment stating that the Plaintiff has title to the contested property and that the Defendants have encroached upon Plaintiff’s property. 2. An order instructing the Defendants to remove the structure from Plaintiff’s property within 90 days or in the alternative pay $50,000 for the 22 + feet of land that they have encroached upon with Plaintiff keeping the land surrounding the house and the lake frontage. 3. Punitive damages in the amount of $35,000. 4. $10 per day for every day the Defendants have blocked Plaintiff’s driveway with their backhoe. 5. All costs that Plaintiff has incurred to prosecute this suit. 6. Any and all other relief that the Plaintiff may be entitled to under the law. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 12, 2013 --------------------------------- JACK L HERRONEN N 11431 LAKE RD PO BOX 12 IRONWOOD, MI 49938 TEL. (906) 932-9791 CAST YOUR VOTE! LOVE THY NEIGHBOR? OR HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?
Posted on: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:25:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015