A Plat Dispute Resolves in Favor of Access to Houghton Lake

In Westfall Heights Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Carr (No. 365165, Michigan Court of Appeals, April 7, 2025), the court affirmed a trial court’s ruling on riparian rights and dock usage in the Westfall Heights subdivision on Houghton Lake. The plaintiff, primarily representing riparian owners, sought to limit the use of Center and East Landings—dedicated in the 1940s plat for all lot owners—to loading and unloading passengers and cargo. The defendants, mostly nonriparian owners, argued for broader uses, including docking and mooring boats, consistent with a prior 1999 ruling (Haag v. Callard).

OLC’s attorney Philip L. Ellison was a part of this case and argued collateral estoppel applied as to Haag’s definition of “landing” (allowing docks, mooring, swimming, and picnicking) bound both landings, as the plat’s language showed no differing intent. The trial court agreed and rejected the Association’s claim of an intervening legal change, affirming that extrinsic evidence is only used for ambiguous dedications, which was not the case here.

Thereafter, a resolution between OLC’s clients and neighboring complaining plaintiffs were reached. Others did not have the same positive outcome which resulted in a trial.

At trial, the court found that the docks, operated as marinas due to fees charged for mooring, violated the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) by interfering with adjacent riparian owners’ rights. To remedy this, the court limited each landing to ten watercraft (five docked, five wet-anchored), ensuring compliance with NREPA and local zoning without requiring permits for private, noncommercial use. This balanced riparian and nonriparian rights, preventing overburdening of the landings. The Appeals Court upheld these findings, emphasizing the plat’s intent and the need to mitigate interference with riparian navigation and enjoyment, reinforcing precedent on communal lake access in subdivided properties.

Taxes, Agritourism, and Right to Farm: How A Case Reached a Mixed Outcome

In Blake’s Farm, Inc v Armada Township (Michigan Court of Appeals, May 15, 2025), the court affirmed the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s ruling that two parcels owned by Blake’s Farm were only partially eligible for Qualified Agricultural Exemptions (QAEs) of 25.3% and 54% for 2023 and 2024. This decision underscores the tension between property rights and statutory tax exemptions, highlighting how land use impacts owners’ fiscal benefits. Blake’s Farm, operating an apple orchard alongside a restaurant, gift shop, and agritourism events, argued for a full QAE, asserting all activities were agricultural under the Michigan Right to Farm Act (RTFA). The court rejected this, emphasizing that the General Property Tax Act (GPTA) governs tax exemptions, not the RTFA, which protects against nuisance lawsuits but not tax liabilities.

The ruling clarifies that property rights to use land for diverse purposes, like agritourism, do not automatically confer tax benefits. MCL 211.7dd(d) excludes commercial structures—such as Blake’s Farm’s restaurant, parking lots, and event spaces—from QAEs, limiting exemptions to land and buildings devoted primarily to agricultural use. Unrebutted evidence, including aerial photographs and valuation calculations, supported the Tribunal’s finding that significant portions of the parcels served commercial purposes. This case illustrates that while property owners may freely develop their land, tax exemptions hinge on strict statutory definitions, potentially restricting financial relief for multifaceted agricultural enterprises in Michigan.

A New Twist on the Old Legal Doctrine of Prescriptive Easements

Under Michigan law, a person who uses land that actual, visible, open, notorious, hostile, under cover of a claim of right, continuous, and uninterrupted for the statutory period of 15 years can claim a prescriptive easement. Now, it also includes long-term overuse of already existing easement when sustainably undertaken.

Continue reading “A New Twist on the Old Legal Doctrine of Prescriptive Easements”

State Law “Tops” Federal Land Patents in Michigan “Bottoms-lands” Dispute

Ownership of riparian property automatically includes that portion of a lake’s bottomlands known as the riparian or littoral extension. This principle is well established under Michigan property law. A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision reconfirms the same but added a further clarification.

Continue reading “State Law “Tops” Federal Land Patents in Michigan “Bottoms-lands” Dispute”

Restrictive Covenants Can Be Strictly (and Harshly) Enforced

Many properties in Michigan, whether on lakes or in cities, are covered by restrictive covenants. Restrictive covenants, sometimes called deed restrictions, are private-party agreements that run with or ‘go with’ the land and control any number of uses and prohibitions for the use of property. These property restrictions are usually created by a subdivision developer or by a vote of a group of property owners.

Continue reading “Restrictive Covenants Can Be Strictly (and Harshly) Enforced”

Can I Be Awarded Money Damages for Interference with an Easement

The decision to bring a lawsuit against a trespasser or neighbor is a competing question of strategy and goals. Does one seek money damages, an injunction, or both? The easier case, in a practical sense, is just to obtain a court order to halt a trespasser from his or her illegal acts. Moreover, seeking money damages for loss of the use of an easement has been difficult because there has been a question whether such a legal remedy even exists under Michigan law. That has now changed. Continue reading “Can I Be Awarded Money Damages for Interference with an Easement”

Deadlines via the Statute of Limitations Matter

When bringing suit, one of the common defenses property law attorneys (like the one at OLC) look for is known as the statute of limitations. It is also one of the most misunderstood aspects of property law, even for judges.

Most lawyers know that when filing a lawsuit, there are time limits on when to file. For contracts, it is six years from the breach. For personal injury, it is three years from the accident. For FOIA requests, it is 180 days. It all depends on the nature of the claims.

Under Michigan property law, the applicable statute of limitations depends on the nature of the claim and how the judge views the claim. The limitation runs from the date it “first accrues.” Continue reading “Deadlines via the Statute of Limitations Matter”