865 N.W.2d 923
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs own lots abutting platted rights-of-way for Lake Street and Commercial Avenue in the village of Beulah and seek two strips of land within those platted rights-of-way under a theory of acquiescence.
- Pre-1968 and mid-20th-century physical features (railroad ties and a rock wall, landscaping, driveway, tree) separated the claimed strips from the traveled roadway.
- In 2012 the village proposed street improvements (angled parking, sidewalk, streetscape) that would occupy parts of the claimed strips. Plaintiffs sued asserting title by acquiescence.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted it. Plaintiffs appealed as of right.
- Central legal question: whether MCL 247.190 bars private title claims (including acquiescence) to land within platted village street rights-of-way, including unimproved portions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 247.190 apply to platted village streets (i.e., are they “highways”)? | MCL 247.190 does not reach platted village streets. | The term “highways” is broad and includes village streets and platted rights-of-way. | Court: “Highways” reasonably construed broadly to include village streets; statute applies. |
| Does MCL 247.190 bar acquiescence-based private title claims? | Acquiescence claims are outside the statute; Mason requires a municipality to sue to prevent acquiescence in some contexts. | MCL 247.190’s plain language bars any encroachment from giving title or rights, regardless of theory. | Court: Statute bars acquiescence claims to public highways; acquiescence and adverse possession both seek title. |
| Is Mason v. City of Menominee controlling here? | Mason protects private acquiescence claims to some municipal land unless municipality sues. | Mason is inapposite because it was decided under a different statute (MCL 600.5821(2)); MCL 247.190 specifically governs highways. | Court: Mason does not apply; MCL 247.190 governs platted rights-of-way. |
| Do unimproved portions of platted rights-of-way qualify as “public highways” under MCL 247.190? | Unimproved strips are not highways and thus not protected by the statute. | Public acceptance and maintenance of the dedicated right-of-way makes the entire width a public highway even if parts are unimproved. | Court: Entire platted width is a highway if public funds were spent and roads maintained; unimproved strips are covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124 (summary disposition standard)
- Driver v Hanley, 226 Mich App 558 (convert C(8) to C(10) when documents outside pleadings considered)
- Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (statutory interpretation — legislative intent controlling)
- Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304 (use plain meaning and dictionaries when terms undefined)
- Macomb Co Prosecutor v Murphy, 464 Mich 149 (construe act as whole to harmonize provisions)
- In re Petition of Carson, 362 Mich 409 (broad definition of “highway” adopted from Elliott)
- Waisanen v Superior Twp, 305 Mich App 719 (acquiescence and adverse possession both seek title and involve limitations)
- Mason v City of Menominee, 282 Mich App 525 (distinguished — decided under MCL 600.5821(2))
- Crosby v City of Greenville, 183 Mich 452 (entire highway accepted even if parts not traveled)
- DeFlyer v Oceana Co Rd Comm’rs, 374 Mich 397 (public expenditure and maintenance constitute acceptance of full right-of-way)