Marlette Auto Wash LLC v. Van Dyke Sc Properties LLC
501 Mich. 192
| Mich. | 2018Background
- Marlette Auto Wash customers used an adjacent shopping-center parking lot for ingress/egress to the car wash since its opening in 1989; no written easement was recorded.
- In 2000 a public street entrance was closed, leaving the parking-lot route as the practical access to parts of the car wash.
- Ownership changed multiple times: original owner B & J Investment (Zyrowski) sold the car wash in 2005; Marlette Development owned the shopping center until Van Dyke bought it in 2013 (owner: James Zyrowski).
- After Van Dyke’s 2013 purchase, the new owner threatened to block access unless Marlette Auto Wash paid monthly maintenance contributions; plaintiff refused and sued for a prescriptive easement.
- Trial court found a prescriptive easement vested in 2005 and excluded defendant’s counterclaim evidence as undisclosed; Court of Appeals reversed on the easement issue, requiring privity and prior assertion by a predecessor.
- Michigan Supreme Court granted review to decide whether 15 years of adverse use creates an appurtenant prescriptive easement without a predecessor’s having sued to claim it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open, notorious, adverse, continuous use for 15 years creates an appurtenant prescriptive easement without privity | Use by predecessor satisfied statutory elements; vested easement passes to successors without privity | Plaintiff must show 15 years of use by plaintiff or privity with predecessor; prior owner had to assert claim | Yes; prescriptive easement vests when statutory period runs and is appurtenant to successors without privity or prior suit |
| Whether a predecessor must have brought a lawsuit to vest a prescriptive easement | No — title vests when limitations period expires, not upon litigation | A prior owner must have acted on the right (filed suit) for vesting to occur | No; suit is not required for vesting; judicial decree only makes title recordable/marketable |
| Whether long-standing use shifts burden to servient owner to prove permissive use | Long, notorious use supports presumption of adverse use; burden shifts after many years | Concern about "secret" easements harming bona fide purchasers | Court reaffirmed that openly notorious use raises presumption; burden shifts to servient owner; bona fide purchaser protections and extinguishment for nonuse mitigate secret-easement concerns |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying privity/tacking rules here | Predecessor’s adverse use that met elements sufficed; no tacking/privity needed for a vested appurtenant easement | Court of Appeals relied on privity/tacking precedents to deny relief | Court of Appeals erred; Michigan precedent (Wortman/Haab) allows vesting under predecessors and transfer without privity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wortman v. Stafford, 217 Mich 554 (recognizes that open, notorious, continuous adverse use can create an appurtenant easement that passes to successors)
- Haab v. Moorman, 332 Mich 126 (confirms that a prescriptive easement established under a predecessor becomes appurtenant and passes with the dominant estate)
- Beach v. Lima Twp., 489 Mich 99 (explains adverse-possession elements and that title vests when the statutory period expires, though decree is needed for marketable/record title)
- Reed v. Soltys, 106 Mich App 341 (discusses burden-shifting when use exceeds the statutory period by many years)
- Gorte v. Dep’t of Transp., 202 Mich App 161 (explains that title vests when the limitation period expires; does not require prior suit to vest title)