Holton v. Ward
303 Mich. App. 718
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Adjacent parcels were split from a common owner who, in the 1950s, dredged a wetland and built an earthen dam, creating a large artificial pond that straddles both parcels.
- Plaintiffs (James and Nancy Holton) sought riparian access to the portion of the pond on defendant Carole Ward’s property; access is currently blocked by a fence.
- Mr. Holton previously filed a DEQ contested-case action in 2004, and the DEQ issued a 2006 final determination that he had no riparian or “water” rights in the pond; he lost that claim and later appealed unrelated portions.
- Plaintiffs filed the 2011 suit asserting common-law riparian rights (and, on appeal only, a statutory theory under Part 301 of NREPA) to access the pond on Ward’s land.
- The trial court granted Ward’s summary-disposition motion, relying on the rule that riparian rights do not attach to artificial waterbodies and on collateral estoppel from the DEQ ruling, but denied sanctions; the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition and reversed on sanctions, remanding to determine fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do riparian rights attach to the pond? | Holton: he has riparian rights to use the pond that abuts his land. | Ward: pond is artificial; Michigan law gives no riparian rights for artificial waterbodies. | No riparian rights; artificial pond does not confer riparian rights. |
| Is the suit barred by collateral estoppel? | Holton: DEQ decision shouldn’t bar this new action. | Ward: DEQ adjudicated the same riparian-rights issue; parties had full opportunity to litigate. | Yes; DEQ’s prior adjudication bars relitigation. |
| Does Part 301 (NREPA) create riparian rights for owners abutting >5-acre waters? | Holton (raised on appeal): statutory definition creates/extends riparian rights. | Ward: statute merely defines terms and does not abrogate common law. | Argument waived and, on merits, rejected — statute does not expand riparian rights. |
| Are plaintiffs’ claims frivolous such that sanctions/attorney fees are warranted? | Holton: claim was arguable. | Ward: claim lacked arguable merit given binding caselaw and DEQ ruling; sanctions required. | Claim was frivolous; trial court erred denying sanctions; remand to determine fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Enz, 379 Mich 667 (explains artificial-waters rule: riparian rights do not attach to man-made waterways)
- Persell v. Wertz, 287 Mich App 576 (reaffirms that riparian rights do not arise from artificial bodies of water)
- Kernen v. Homestead Dev. Co., 232 Mich App 503 (defines natural watercourse and distinguishes surface waters)
- Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co., 469 Mich 679 (elements and mutuality considerations for collateral estoppel)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (recognizes right to exclude as essential property right cited in opinion)