2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel
488 Mich. 136
| Mich. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs own front-lot properties on Lake Charlevoix, separated from the lake by Beach Drive (a public road).
- Beach Drive was dedicated under the 1887 plat act and accepted by the public in 1911; Charlevoix County Road Commission (CCRC) maintains it.
- Plaintiffs have used the lake and built seasonal docks; back-lot owners also use the waterfront; deeds lack explicit riparian rights.
- Lower courts held the statutory dedication vested fee title in the public, thereby extinguishing plaintiffs' riparian rights.
- The issue presented: whether front-lot owners retain riparian rights despite a statutory base-fee dedication of a parallel road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the nature of the prerogative conveyed by the 1887 plat act? | Base fee conveys riparian rights to front-lot owners. | Statutory base fee vests fee title in the county for public uses only; riparian rights extinguished. | Statutory base fee is limited and nominal; does not extinguish riparian rights. |
| Do front-lot owners retain riparian rights when a parallel road is statutorily dedicated? | Front-lot owners retain riparian rights despite dedication. | Dedication divests riparian rights from front-lot owners. | Front-lot owners have riparian rights; dedication does not divest them. |
| Is the scope of the dedication compatible with riparian rights and water access? | Riparian rights arise from ownership of land abutting water; road dedication should not destroy them. | Dedication limits use to public road purposes; access to water may be controlled by the county. | Riparian rights remain with front-lot owners; public use limited by dedication scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patrick v Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of Kalamazoo, 120 Mich 185 (Mich. 1899) (plat conveys a base fee; limited to uses designated)
- Bay Co v Bradley, 39 Mich 163 (Mich. 1878) (county acquires no beneficial ownership; public easement)
- Beaubien, 2 Doug. 270 (Mich. 1846) (plat acts obviate common-law dedication difficulties)
- Wanzer v Blanchard & Buckland, 3 Mich 11 (Mich. 1853) (statutory dedication transfers fee to county in trust)
- Miller, 31 Mich 447 (Mich. 1875) (acceptance necessary for plat to effect public road; no private ownership)
- Backus v Detroit, 49 Mich 110 (Mich. 1882) (public road dedication restricts uses to public purposes)
- McCardel v Smolen, 71 Mich App 560 (Mich. App. 1976) (front-lot riparian rights case; up to McCardel line)
- Mich Central Park Ass’n v Roscommon Co Rd Comm, 2 Mich App 192 (Mich. App. 1966) (front-lot riparian rights recognized under plat act)
- Sheridan Drive Ass’n v Woodlawn Backproperty Owners Ass’n, 29 Mich App 64 (Mich. App. 1970) (riparian rights for front-lot owners confirmed)
- Kempf v Ellixson, 69 Mich App 339 (Mich. App. 1976) (front-lot riparian rights reaffirmed; scope of dedication matters)
- Thies v Howland, 424 Mich 282 (Mich. 1985) (definitive rule: interposition of fee title destroys riparian rights unless exception)
- Croucher v Wooster, 271 Mich 337 (Mich. 1935) (front-lot riparian rights when road is contiguous to water; exception when easement)