Nash v. Duncan Park Commission
304 Mich. App. 599
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Chance Nash died in a sledding accident at Duncan Park, Grand Haven.
- The land for Duncan Park was conveyed by Martha Duncan via a 1913 trust deed naming three trustees as the Duncan Park Trust.
- The deed envisioned an active trust with trustees owning the land and managing the park for the public good.
- The Duncan Park Commission, created by ordinance to administer the park, is the Trust’s mechanism but operates with private autonomy and little city oversight.
- Plaintiffs argued the park is city-owned and/or that the Commission is a governmental-immune political subdivision; the trial court granted summary disposition on immunity grounds.
- The Michigan Supreme Court later held the park is owned by the trust and that the Commission is not a political subdivision, reversing and remanding for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owns Duncan Park? | Plaintiffs argued city ownership. | Cities own the park; the deed shows transfer to city. | Trust owns the land; ownership vested in trustees. |
| Is the Duncan Park Commission a political subdivision with GTLA immunity? | Commission is a government entity immune from suit. | Commission constitutes a political subdivision under GTLA. | Commission is not a political subdivision; immunity does not apply. |
| Did the deed create a valid trust despite alleged lack of a named trust? | There is a Duncan Park Trust implied by the deed. | No separate Duncan Park Trust document; city ownership. | The deed creates an active charitable trust with trustees owning the land. |
| Does a common-law dedication vest fee ownership in the city? | Dedication transfers fee to the city. | Dedication does not transfer fee; ownership remains with trustees. | Dedication does not vest fee in the city; ownership remains with trustees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rothschild v. Dickinson, 169 Mich 200 ((1912)) (applies Statute of Uses to eliminate passive trusts when appropriate)
- Patrick v. Young Men's Christian Ass’n of Kalamazoo, 120 Mich 185 ((1899)) (common-law dedication treated as public use while keeping fee in original owner)
- Baum Family Trust v. Babel, 488 Mich 136 ((2000)) (reaffirms that common-law dedication keeps fee with original owner; acceptance required)
- Dextrom v. Wexford Co., 287 Mich. App. 406 ((2010)) (summarizes immunity review under GTLA)
- Palms v. Palms, 68 Mich. 355 ((1888)) (trusts vest whole estate in trustees under old law)