Gimmy G Tress v. Roscommon County Road Commission, 331230

Background

In 1927 Hillcrest Subdivision was platted; many platted streets were never developed or only partially used.
Roscommon County abandoned portions of Summit and Peach Roads in 1972 and 2013; Lyon Township later abandoned them as well.
Plaintiffs (abutting lot owners) sued to vacate portions of the plat and to vest fee simple title to adjacent owners under MCL 560.227a of the Land Division Act (LDA).
The Butts (abutting owners on Summit/Peach) objected, claiming continued use of the full road width for ingress/egress (including access to a pole barn).
The trial court found the Butts’ objection to Summit Road unreasonable, vacated the relevant platted road segments, and awarded fee title to abutting owners up to the centerline; only easements of record were preserved.
The Court of Appeals vacated that judgment, holding the LDA cannot be used to create substantive property rights or eliminate preexisting private easements in platted subdivision roads; remanded for amendment/alternative theories.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the LDA (MCL 560.227a) authorized vacating platted roads and vesting fee to abutters without prior recognition of a substantive property right	LDA permits vesting title to vacated street up to centerline in abutting owners; court may amend plat to reflect current reality	LDA cannot be used to create substantive property rights; plaintiffs must first establish a property right (e.g., adverse possession) before LDA relief	Held: LDA may not be used to create new substantive property rights; vacation under LDA cannot alone vest fee that conflicts with preexisting private easements; plaintiffs must pursue independent property-right claims first
Whether the Butts’ objections to vacating Summit and Peach Roads were reasonable	Plaintiffs: Butts’ objections were unreasonable; use was limited and plaintiffs’ proposed vacation reflected long-standing practical use	Butts: They use full road width for ingress/egress (daily garage and pole barn access); vacation would impair property use and access	Held: Butts raised a reasonable objection as to Summit Road (vacation improper); objection to Peach Road was not reasonable (vacation permissible)
Whether public abandonment by county/township eliminated private easement rights among lot owners	Plaintiffs: abandonment ended public maintenance and supports vesting fee to abutters	Defendants: Abandonment relinquishes public right only; private easement/right of access created by plat survives and remains enforceable among lot owners	Held: Abandonment only terminates public interest; private easement/right of ingress and egress survives and cannot be extinguished by LDA vacation alone
Whether the trial court properly extinguished the Butts’ private easement by awarding exclusive halves to abutters	Plaintiffs: Awarding fee to abutters up to centerline reflects statute and prevents odd strips	Butts: Award extinguished their private easement/use of the full roadway width	Held: Trial court erred in awarding exclusive use to each side and failing to preserve the private easement rights of Butts for Summit Road; judgment vacated insofar as it created substantive new property rights

Key Cases Cited

Valoppi v. Detroit Engineering & Machine Co., 339 Mich 674 (discussion of preventing odd strips when vacating alleys/streets)
2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel, 488 Mich 136 (threefold relation of abutting owners to platted street and survival of private access rights)
Tomecek v. Bavas, 482 Mich 484 (LDA intended to clarify existing rights, not create new ones)
Beach v. Township of Lima, 489 Mich 99 (substantive property rights must be established by quiet-title/adverse-possession action before LDA plat correction)
Minerva Partners, Ltd. v. First Passage, LLC, 274 Mich App 207 (platted streets convey private rights of use to lot purchasers)
Nelson v. Roscommon County Road Comm’n, 117 Mich App 125 (vacation vests title but private right to use may persist)