May 24, 2012

Michigan Riparian Rights: 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel

In Baum, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals which could have undermined the riparian rights of thousands of Michigan riparians who must cross a public road to acess their water frontage. The Michigan Supreme Court held that front-lot owners whose property is separated by a public road running parallel to the water have riparian rights. In reversing the court of appeals on this point, the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed what most riparian rights practitioners believed to be a decades-old and well-settled law in Michigan.

2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel, 488 Mich. 136 (2010)

© 2012 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.