Beach v. Twp. of Lima
| Decision Date | 03 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 139394.Calendar No. 1. |
| Citation | 802 N.W.2d 1,489 Mich. 99 |
| Parties | Florence BEACH, Cynthia B. Guthrie, Donald E. Jaekle, Jr., as Trustee of the Ann B. Jaekle Revocable Trust, Lillian B. Mumaw, and Dwight E. Beach, Jr., Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees,v.TOWNSHIP OF LIMA, Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Appellant,andJeffrey V. Munger, Defendant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Keusch, Flintoft & Conlin, P.C. (by Peter C. Flintoft), Chelsea, and Gary P. Supanich, PLLC (by Gary P. Supanich), Bloomfield Hills, for Florence Beach.Reading, Etter & Lillich (by Victor L. Lillich), Ann Arbor, for Lima Township.Cunningham Dalman, P.C. (by Andrew J. Mulder and Vincent L. Duckworth), Holland, for Amicus Curiae the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Township Association, and the Public Corporation Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, and James E. Riley, Assistant Attorney General, for Amicus Curiae the Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth.McClelland & Anderson, L.L.P. (by David E. Pierson), Lansing, for Amicus Curiae the Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.
This case requires us to consider whether a plaintiff who seeks to establish an adverse possession claim that would affect property in a recorded plat must file a claim under the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.101 et seq., if the plaintiff is not expressly requesting that the plat be vacated, corrected, or revised. We hold that an action that seeks to establish a substantive property right arises independently of an LDA action to vacate, correct, or revise a recorded plat. It is only after such a property right has been recognized that the need arises under the LDA to revise a plat that does not reflect the newly recognized property right. Until that property right is legally recognized, the LDA is inapplicable. The language of the LDA and our cases analyzing the LDA demonstrate that an LDA action is appropriate when a party's interest arises from or is traceable to the plat or the platting process.
An action to quiet title by adverse possession confers judicial recognition that the possessor acquired marketable title of record to the property at issue. A successful quiet title action also establishes a substantive property right that was not previously shown within the plat. Without possessing record title to the property, no one, including plaintiffs, had a basis on which to request an alteration of the plat under the LDA. Therefore, plaintiffs were not required to proceed under MCL 560.221, 1 which allows a circuit court to vacate, correct, or revise a plat but does not “enable a court to establish an otherwise nonexistent property right.” 2 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. However, we order the circuit court to strike the portion of its order that corrected the plat to reflect plaintiffs' successful quiet title action because plaintiffs did not request that relief.
The dispute in this case arises from a disagreement between plaintiff Florence Beach 3 and defendant Lima Township (the township) over property rights to areas of land shown as platted streets on the Harford Village plat. The Harford Village plat, which was made and recorded in 1835, has remained unaltered since its execution. It consists of six blocks arranged in two rows of three. Blocks I, II, and III, which are the relevant blocks here, are bordered to the south by Jackson Road, a county road that runs east to west. Block I is bordered to the west by West Street, a county road that runs north and south. The other relevant streets shown on the plat, North Street, East Street, and Cross Street, have never been developed or used as roads.
Through several conveyances that occurred in 1854, 1881, and 1897, the Beach family acquired the area of land now known as the Beach Family Farm. In particular, the Beach Family Farm consists of all of the lots in Blocks II and III of the plat. In 1954, the township purchased lots in Block I, which is currently the site of a community hall. In 2004, the township purchased several more lots in Block I, intending to build a fire department substation. The township also intended to use and develop part of North Street and part of Cross Street as roads for ingress and egress to the substation.
Plaintiffs disputed the township's right to use the undeveloped property designated as streets on the plat and filed the instant action to quiet title to the areas platted as North, East, and Cross Streets based on adverse possession. The township filed a counterclaim to quiet title with regard to its right to the platted streets. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary disposition.
The township moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10), arguing that plaintiffs' action should be dismissed because they were required to file an action under the LDA to vacate portions of the plat. Plaintiffs contended in their motion for summary disposition, filed under MCR 2.116(C)(8), (9), and (10), that there was no genuine question of material fact that they had acquired title by adverse possession.
The circuit court denied the township's motion but ordered an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion. Following the hearing, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition. The circuit court found that large trees, at least 100 years old, were growing in the middle of the areas platted as streets and that the Beach family had adversely possessed the disputed property by farming, as well as by maintaining private trails and fences on the disputed property. The circuit court held that plaintiffs had established the elements of adverse possession and that plaintiffs were not required to proceed under the LDA. Although plaintiffs had not requested such relief, the court ordered that “[t]o the extent that it is necessary the Harford Plat shall be corrected to remove Cross, North, and East Street[s]....”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed.4 In response to the township's argument that plaintiffs were required to file their claim under the LDA, the Court of Appeals held that “because plaintiffs did not expressly seek in this action ‘to vacate, correct, or revise a dedication in a recorded plat,’ ” an action under the LDA was not required.5 The Court of Appeals construed our decisions in Martin v. Beldean6 and Tomecek v. Bavas7 as supporting the proposition that “akin to quieting title, resolution of underlying disputes regarding the nature, character, and scope of existing property rights that could potentially lead to plat revisions may be undertaken in the context of an LDA action, but it is not mandatory.” 8 The Court of Appeals also concluded that Martin and Tomecek permit “a bifurcated approach, involving, first, a determination regarding the nature, character, and scope of the existing property interests being disputed by the parties and, second, an alteration of the plat map, if necessary, so that it is consistent with the property interests as determined by the court.” 9 The township subsequently sought leave to appeal, which we granted.10
We review de novo a decision on a motion for summary disposition.11 We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation.12 In addition, whether plaintiffs were required to bring their action under the LDA is a question of law that we review de novo. 13 An action to quiet title is an equitable action that we also review de novo.14
This Court has long recognized the common law doctrine of adverse possession,15 which the Legislature has since codified.16 To establish adverse possession, the party claiming it must show “clear and cogent proof of possession that is actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period of 15 years, hostile and under cover of claim of right.” 17 After the statutory period ends, the record owner's title is extinguished 18 and the adverse possessor acquires “legal title” to the property. 19 Acquisition of title in this manner includes “the right to defend the possession and to protect the property against the trespass of all others.” 20 However, the title acquired by adverse possession is neither record title nor marketable title until the adverse possessor files a lawsuit and obtains a judicial decree.21 Thus, until an adverse possessor obtains the necessary judicial decree, there is no record of the adverse possessor's ownership interest to verify whether the possessor actually satisfied the elements of adverse possession. The circuit court ruled that the Beach family had established the elements of adverse possession and acquired title to the land before 1907.22 Consequently, the judicial decree quieting title in plaintiffs settled any ownership claims of the township and conferred marketable title of record to the disputed property on plaintiffs.
The question posed by this case is whether a nonrecord property holder seeking to establish marketable title by proof of adverse possession must bring such an action under the LDA, rather than solely as an action to quiet title.
The LDA became effective on January 1, 1968. This act and the amendments to it are the most recent manifestations of the Legislature's regulation of platting.23 In particular, the LDA provides a process for surveying and marking subdivided property, as well as for recording with the local municipality the information compiled on a plat.24 The LDA also permits a circuit court to vacate, correct, or revise a recorded plat, 25 which the LDA defines as a “map.” 26 A land plat describes underlying property interests in conformity with record ownership as nearly as practicable.27
For the purposes of this case, the most pertinent portion of the LDA, MCL 560.222, provides:
Except as provided in section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v. Van Dyke SC Props., LLC
...easement in order to create an easement appurtenant is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Beach v. Lima Twp. , 489 Mich. 99, 106, 802 N.W.2d 1 (2011). Moreover, an action to quiet title is an equitable action that we also review de novo. Id .The adverse-possession statute, firs......
-
Waisanen v. Superior Twp.
...600.5821 (2). Id. at 536 n. 1, 766 N.W.2d 888.Finally, in Beach v. Lima Twp., 283 Mich.App. 504, 770 N.W.2d 386 (2009), aff'd 489 Mich. 99, 802 N.W.2d 1 (2011), this Court considered a defendant township's appeal of the trial court's grant of summary disposition to the plaintiffs on the bas......
-
Trademark Props. of Mich., LLC v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
...495 Mich. 1, 8, 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014) ; Book–Gilbert v. Greenleaf, 302 Mich.App. 538, 542, 840 N.W.2d 743 (2013) ; Beach v. Lima Twp., 489 Mich. 99, 106, 802 N.W.2d 1 (2011). Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and th......
-
Fedorova v. Foley
... ... Main Street ... Bank , 977 F.Supp.2d 766, 776 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing ... Beach v. Township of Lima , 489 Mich. 99, 110, 802 ... N.W.2d 1 (2011)). “Plaintiff bears the ... ...
-
CHAPTER 15 BALANCING RISK IN TITLE OPINIONS1
...by adverse possession is not marketable until established by judicial proceedings against the record owner); Beach v. Township of Lima, 802 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2011) (title acquired by adverse possession is neither record title nor marketable title until the adverse possessor files a lawsuit an......