942 N.W.2d 63
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Grayling sued local residents to clarify the scope of public dedications and to enjoin uses at the termini of three platted roads in Portage Lake Park (Walnut Plaisance, Lincoln Park Boulevard, portions of Portage Lake Drive).
- The roads were platted in 1901; the Crawford County Road Commission passed a McNitt Act resolution in 1937 purporting to accept portions of Walnut Plaisance and Lincoln Park Boulevard into the county road system.
- Portions of the platted roads were never developed; Lincoln Park Boulevard has an improved dirt turnaround at the lake; other stretches remain undeveloped forest.
- Residents argued the Road Commission never validly accepted the dedications (or acceptance lapsed), that lakeward termini were not accepted, and that statutory and common-law doctrines (including MCL 221.22 and MCL 324.30111b) bar Grayling’s claims; they also challenged Grayling’s standing.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Grayling and the Road Commission; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding McNitt resolution acceptance valid and timely, lakeward termini were accepted, MCL 221.22 did not apply, MCL 324.30111b applied (roads are public road ends), and Grayling had standing and a civil remedy under MCL 324.30111b(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1937 McNitt resolution effected acceptance of the platted roads | Residents: McNitt resolution alone insufficient absent an order to open roads | Road Commission/Grayling: McNitt resolution expressly identified the streets and suffices as acceptance | McNitt resolution that expressly identifies the road constitutes formal acceptance (Rice governs; Christiansen affirmed this view) |
| Whether acceptance was timely (offer lapsed between 1901 dedication and 1937 acceptance) | Residents: 36-year gap rendered acceptance untimely | Road Commission/Grayling: no evidence proprietor withdrew offer; gap reasonable under precedents | Acceptance was timely as a matter of law given no withdrawal and comparable precedent (Kraus/Christiansen distinguished from much longer lapses) |
| Whether the lakeward termini were included in the accepted mileage despite discrepancies in lengths listed in 1937 resolution | Residents: listed lengths were shorter, so lake ends were not accepted | Road Commission: 1956 resolution and plat context show intent to preserve lake access; acceptance at least for lakeward portions | Court found no factual dispute that Road Commission intended to accept portions leading to the lake; accepted lake ends for purposes of dispute |
| Applicability of MCL 221.22 (four-year nonuse forfeiture) to platted dedications | Residents: roads ceased if not opened/worked within 4 years | Grayling/Road Commission: Rice holds MCL 221.22 does not apply to roads dedicated by recorded plat | MCL 221.22 does not apply to recorded-plat dedications (Rice controlling) |
| Whether the road termini are "public road ends" under MCL 324.30111b and whether Grayling may sue under subsection (5) | Residents: undeveloped/unused stretches are not "lawfully open for public use"; Grayling not a "person or agency" under (5) | Grayling: plat dedication, public use by backlot owners, and statutory trust give roads status as public road ends; subsection (5) allows civil actions by persons or agencies including local units | Court held roads are lawfully open public road ends as a matter of law (adopting Colthurst reasoning) and township (Grayling) may bring civil action under MCL 324.30111b(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Clare Co. Rd. Comm., 346 Mich. 658 (Michigan Supreme Court) (McNitt resolution that expressly identifies plats/streets can constitute valid acceptance of plat dedications)
- Kraus v. Dep’t of Commerce, 451 Mich. 420 (Michigan Supreme Court) (timeliness and withdrawal principles for plat dedication acceptance; general McNitt resolutions insufficient if they purport to take over all roads)
- Christiansen v. Gerrish Twp., 239 Mich. App. 380 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (confirmed Rice where McNitt resolution expressly identifies the street; factual inquiry on whether full length was intended)
- Vivian v. Roscommon Co. Bd. of Comm’rs, 433 Mich. 511 (Michigan Supreme Court) (discussion of 1978 amendment presumption and circumstances where dedication withdrawal may be found)
- Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Gerrish Twp., 255 Mich. App. 83 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (discussed acceptance/presumption issues under later statutory amendments; not read to require more than an identifying McNitt resolution)