James McEwen v. John Guthrie, 331845

Background

Plaintiffs (lakefront owners) and defendants (backlot owners) own lots in Kaiser’s Patterson Lake subdivision; three private streets (Lakeview, Park, Pleasant) end at the lake and the plat dedicates "the streets and alleys . . . to the use of the lot owners."
Deeds granted backlot owners a right of way to the lake and language allowing "not more than two boats on shore at any time for private use only." Plaintiffs’ littoral (riparian) rights remain undisputed.
A dock at the end of Lakeview Drive had been seasonally installed by prior backlot owners and reassembled by defendants for decades; plaintiffs purchased adjacent lot in 2006 and later sued to enjoin the dock and mooring.
Trial court found the plat/deeds unambiguously granted access, construed that access to a road end includes a commensurate right to build a dock for daytime docking, but also found longstanding overnight/mooring use inconsistent with the easement and thus established a prescriptive easement for seasonal dock use.
Plaintiffs appealed contesting (1) the trial court’s reliance on extrinsic evidence/ambiguity, (2) the right to maintain a dock under the easement, (3) denial of summary disposition, (4) the finding of a prescriptive easement, and (5) alleged judicial bias.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by considering extrinsic evidence when easement language was clear	Easement language is unambiguous; court should not consider extrinsic evidence	Circumstances (longstanding dock use) created a latent ambiguity justifying extrinsic evidence	Court: trial court erred to the extent it relied on extrinsic evidence to create an ambiguity, but that error was harmless because court ultimately construed the easement correctly
Whether the easement/dedication includes a right to construct and maintain a dock at the private road end	Dock rights are exclusive to riparian owners and not conveyed by the plat/deeds	Dedication of streets to lot owners that terminate at the lake is presumed to include structures (wharves/docks) to aid access; dock must be available to those entitled to use the way	Court: under Michigan precedent, a way terminating at navigable waters is presumed to permit a dock to facilitate access; trial court did not err in holding a commensurate right to build a dock for temporary anchoring
Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary disposition	Plaintiffs: correct interpretation of easement entitles them to judgment as a matter of law	Defendants: disputed permissive vs. adverse use and pleaded prescriptive-easement defense	Court: denial of summary disposition affirmed—genuine factual disputes existed and trial court properly proceeded to bench trial
Whether defendants established a prescriptive easement for seasonal dock and overnight mooring	Plaintiffs: use was permissive (based on alleged mutual agreements), so not hostile/adverse	Defendants: open, notorious, continuous, and hostile use for >15 years supports prescriptive easement	Court: defendants proved open, notorious, continuous, and hostile use for >15 years; plaintiffs failed to prove the use was permissive; prescriptive easement established

Key Cases Cited

Thies v. Howland, 424 Mich 282 (presumption that ways ending at water allow access-related structures)
Little v. Kin (Little II), 468 Mich 699 (unenforceability of extrinsic evidence when instrument language is plain)
Dyball v. Lennox, 260 Mich App 698 (scope of nonriparian access rights; limitations on extrinsic evidence)
Shay v. Aldrich, 487 Mich 648 (use of extrinsic evidence to detect latent ambiguity)
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability and Property Pool, 473 Mich 188 (latent ambiguity doctrine and role of extrinsic evidence)
Hess v. West Bloomfield Township, 439 Mich 550 (riparian-exclusive rights to erect docks but dedication can convey dock rights)
Plymouth Canton Community Crier, Inc. v. Prose, 242 Mich App 676 (elements and nature of prescriptive easement)