Advertisement

July 28, 2014

No Prescriptive Right to Dock in Plat

In 1957 the Michigan Supreme Court observed that "as the Water Wonderland acquires more population it also acquires more litigation over water rights."  Our population has increased, we have become more litigious, and plats continue to be a primary source of that litigation.  In November, 2012 the Michigan Court of Appeals decided O'Brien v. Hicks, which involved the use of two dedicated parkways that terminated at the shore of Otsego Lake.  You can view a copy of the plat map here.  Though the parkways were dedicated to the use of the public, in a 2003 court case, the public's interest was vacated, though owners of lots within the plat retained rights to use the parkways.  In 2012, the court of appeals addressed appropriate uses of the parkways by backlot owners, i.e. those who owned lots within the plat that did not have lake frontage.

The trial court held that five of the backlot owners had acquired a prescriptive right to exercise riparian rights, including use of a dock and the overnight mooring of boats, because those owners had exercised such rights for many years without objection.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that none of the backlot owners were entitled to exercise riparian rights.  Principles to be gleaned from that decision include the following:

  • The court recognized that proper use depends on the intent of the grantor (the plat proprietor) and declined to rely on evidence regarding long-term usage as a substitute for what the grantor actually intended.  This is significant because many waterfront plats in Michigan were platted in the early part of the last century, and the plat proprietors are now deceased.
  • Unchallenged use of a platted area, for purposes beyond those otherwise permitted, does not give rise to prescriptive rights because the requirement of "adversity" is absent.  The Court wrote that "one may not acquire a prescriptive easement to property already subject to an easement for the benefit of an entire subdivision and created through a private dedication simply because an owner 'overuses' the easement."

There are hundreds of lakes throughout the State where dedicated areas within plats are used for purposes beyond those legally permitted.  Backlot owners may purchase lots believing they have the "right" to continue those uses.  When a waterfront property owner or other interested party objects, the familiar retort is that such uses can continue because they have existed for years.  O'Brien teaches that such protests may fall on deaf ears.

© 2014 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Eric J. Guerin, Varnum Law Firm, Construction law attorney
Partner

Much of Eric's practice concerns challenges faced by other riparian owners, includingboundary disputes, quiet title actions, deed restrictions, adverse possession, land use and zoning matters, environmental issues, riparian rights, easements, road ends and access issues.  Though not unique to riparians, waterfront property owners encounter these issues more than...

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.