Redmond v. Van Buren County
293 Mich. App. 344
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tibbies own five Syndicate Park lots and seek access through Lots 1–4, Block 21 via a locked gate.
- Gate access historically existed for private use; a 2006 electronic cantilever gate replaced prior access arrangements.
- Porters conveyed Lots 1–4 to Sand Haven Voluntary Association in 1956; Sand Haven Shores Homeowners Association formed in 2006.
- Trial court held Porters’ conveyance created an irrevocable private easement by private dedication and that access could be exercised by defendants.
- Tibbies alleged easement by prescription, implication, and necessity and challenged the private dedication theory.
- Court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding a private dedication existed and granted the easement to the Tibbies as part of Syndicate Park lot owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Porters’ deed create a private dedication easement over Lots 1–4? | Tibbies contend Porters’ deed intended dedication for use by lot owners. | Defendants argue no private dedication exists outside plat-based law. | Yes, private dedication existed and created an irrevocable easement. |
| Who has the right to use Lots 1–4 under the private dedication? | Tibbies (lot owners) are entitled to use Lots 1–4. | Association members only should have rights. | Porters intended use for Syndicate Park lot owners; Tibbies have an easement. |
| Is the easement limited to Sand Haven Shores members or all Syndicate Park lot owners? | All lot owners in Syndicate Park should have access. | Access limited to association members. | Access intended for Syndicate Park lot owners; Tibbies included. |
| Does private dedication prevail over lack of formal plat-based conveyance authority? | Private dedication can arise outside plat requirements. | Reliance on plat-based or formal conveyance required. | Private dedication valid despite lack of plat-based conveyance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. Hirschman, 469 Mich 553 (Mich. 2004) (recognizing private dedications and intent)
- Martin v. Beldean, 469 Mich 541 (Mich. 2004) (private dedications before/after 1968 depending on plat statute)
- Badeaux v. Ryerson, 213 Mich 642 (Mich. 1921) (common-law public dedication arising from deedations and use)
- Beach v. Lima Twp, 283 Mich App 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (private/public dedication principles in Michigan)
- Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Gerrish Twp, 255 Mich App 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (private dedications and public policy considerations)
- DeWitt v. Roscommon Co. Rd. Comm., 45 Mich App 579 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973) (easements and dedications in road context)