Advertisement

May 19, 2013

Lake Michigan Road End Beach Closed by Court

121st Avenue in Ganges Township, in Allegan County, terminates near Lake Michigan and has been used by members of the public as a "road end" beach for years.  Acitivities at that road end have been the source of litigation, with the most recent case filed in 2006, Benninghoff, et al v. Tilton, et al, Allegan County Circuit Court Case No.  06-39595.  In connection with an earlier appeal in that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Circuit Court to determine: 1) whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prescriptive right for the public to use the road end as a beach; and 2) if not, whether the defendants, who own property adjacent to the road end, were entitled to compensation as a result of their claim for inverse condemnation.  On remand, the Circuit Court bifurcated those issues and a trial was held addressing only the issue of whether there was a prescriptive easement to use the road end as a beach.

On August 2, 2012, Circuit Court Judge John E. Dewane issued a judgment prohibiting use of the road end as a beach.  Click here for a copy of the opinion.  The Court acknowledged that members of the public had used the road end for beach purposes, but held that there was no right to continue those uses because the activities by Ganges Township and the Road Commission had been taken to "facilitate and control the use of the Road End as a road rather than as a beach."  The Court held that the road end could therefore be used only for ingress and  egress to Lake Michigan and entered an injunction prohibiting any other uses.  In short, the road end beach has been closed.

The judgment issued by the Court is not "final" because the Court has not yet conducted a trial on the issue of whether the defendants are entitled to compensation as a result of their claim for inverse condemnation.  Because the August 2 judgment is not a "final" judgment under Michigan law, there is no appeal as of right at this time.  This case has made a previous trip to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and it is virtually certain that another appeal will follow.  The plaintiffs may file an application for leave to appeal, essentially asking the Court of Appeals to accept their appeal before the inverse condemnation claim is resolved by the Circuit Court.  If they do not do so, or if the Court of Appeals refuses to grant leave, an appeal "as of right" is almost certain to follow after the inverse condemnation claim is resolved by the Circuit Court.

At the moment, the immmediate impact of this decision is limited to the 121st Avenue road end, which may no longer be used as a beach.  If and when the Michigan Court of Appeals has the final word, the resolution of this case could impact how other Great Lakes road ends are used throughout the State.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Partner

A partner in Varnum's trial group, Eric represents individuals, associations and business clients in lawsuits involving contract disputes, quiet title actions and other civil disputes. He has extensive experience in real estate matters, including construction law, riparian rights, boundary disputes, zoning and land use issues. Eric's practice also includes disputes involving closely-held businesses including...

269/553-3506

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.