Morse v. Colitti
317 Mich. App. 526
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent lots in West Beach, with a plat that dedicates streets, alleys, and parks to use by present and future lot owners and a 10-foot Walk between defendant's Lot 5 and plaintiff's Lot 6.
- In 2009 defendants built a pathway with landscaping blocks, a retaining wall, a stairway to the lake, and later a wooden fence along the Walk near plaintiff’s lot line.
- Defendants also rented and built a dock on Fine Lake at the end of the Walk, aligned with the Walk, raising disputes about riparian uses.
- Morse sued in 2013 for trespass, nuisance, BCZO violations, and sought ownership of Walk centerline (fee) subject to easements, removal of fence, and relief against tenants’ use; later alleged a reversionary interest in the Walk center.
- The trial court denied summary disposition on several issues in 2014; in 2015 it granted summary disposition for defendants on the pathway/stairway claims and characterized the Park as an extension of the Walk with public traversal rights, which the court later corrected on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, holding plaintiff has a fee interest in the Walk to the centerline (subject to easement), that the fence may overburden the easement, that tenants may use the Walk, and that the Park dedication was not a public dedication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Park dedication public or easement-based | Park dedicated for public use; Morse contends public traversal rights exist. | Park’s use is not limited to lot owners; public rights extend to the Park. | Park dedication is easement for lot owners, not a public dedication. |
| Standing to challenge dock and riparian use | Morse has standing via easement in the Park; seeks injunctions and ownership questions. | Morse lacks riparian rights in the Park and standing to challenge docking. | Morse has standing due to easement in the Park; can challenge dock use. |
| Plaintiff's fee interest in Walk centerline | Platt encodes fee interest to Walk centerline; plaintiff argues he owns fee to centerline one-half | Walk is easement with no fee interest beyond general easement rights. | Plaintiff and defendants each own a fee interest in one-half of the Walk to the centerline, subject to easement. |
| Whether fence overburdens the easement | Fence and structures unnecessarily encroach on plaintiff’s fee portion and burden the easement. | Fence is merely a utility measure given neighborly conflict; does not overburden. | Court erred by not addressing burden; remand to determine encroachment extent and necessity of fence. |
| Tenants’ use of the Walk | Tenants’ use may be improper and burdensome to easement. | Division of dominant estate allows multiple users; tenants may use Walk without an unlawful burden. | Tenants may use the Walk; no unlawful burden shown; not precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thies v Howland, 424 Mich 282 (1985) (riparian/land adjacent to water and fee interests in abutting property)
- 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel, 488 Mich 136 (2010) (fee interest for abutting landowners in privately platted Walks; easement scope)
- Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296 (2010) (abutting landowners’ rights to keep property free from trespass and encroachment)
- Smeberg v Cunningham, 96 Mich 378 (1893) (easement rights and trespass principles in historical context)
- Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644 (2008) (equitable relief in quiet title/ejectment context; 15-year limitation framework applied on remand)