Ikle v. Goebel

Docket Number360854
Decision Date21 December 2023
PartiesMATTHEW IKLE, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. DANIEL GOEBEL and BERT L. KNICKERBOCKER, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs- Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and KERRY A. FRITTS, ALINA L. FRITTS, BARRY C. FRITTS, THERESA A. KNICKERBOCKER, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs, and GENOA TOWNSHIP and ANDRA RUSH, Defendants-Appellees, and JOSEPH ANZALONE, SERENA ANZALONE, GEORGE BEHER, JOANNE BEHER, WM BEHER, MARGARET BEHER, G. RICHARD BEHER, CORAL BLACK, MARK COLLINS, CINDY CORBIN, LARRY CORBIN, KATHY DURFEE, MICHAEL DURFEE, BEVERLY A. FAVOR, JEFFREY GAGACKI, MARLENE GAGACKI, PARTICK J. MONETTE, SANDRA MONETTE, JUDITH PHILLIPS, RONALD LEWIS RICE, JACK TEEGARDIN, NANCY TEEGARDIN, CHRISTOPHER A. DAVIS, LESTER DAVIS, JACK SMITH, JUDY LOCH, RUBEN BARRIOS, MICHELLE BARRIOS, LAUREN E. ALM, JOHN M. STREMICK TRUST, JOHN M. STREMICK, RICHARD A. WOLFRAM, MICHELLE A. WOLFRAM, ROBERT BEHER, KAY BEHER, ANDREW REA, DORIS CASPER TRUST, DORIS CASPER, YVETTE WHITESIDE, DORIS AVEY LIFE ESTATE, DORIS AVEY, ALLEN WALBLAY, VIKKI WALBLAY, CAROL J. HOLCOMB, RANDALL WILT, MARYLOU WILT, MICHAEL J. WRIGHT, ERIC NITSCHMAN, WENDY NITSCHMAN, WILLIAM COZART, TRYGVE HAUG, DIANE HAUG, BENJAMIN CROSS, MICHAEL JONES, 5645 GRAND RIVER, LLC, JOHN WARSOP, KAREN WARSOP, MARK A. PETERS, AMANDA SMYKLA, BERNARD VANHEUSDEN, KAREN CHOUINARD, 5611 E. GRAND RIVER, LLC, ARNOLD STEPHENS LIVING TRUST, ARNOLD STEPHENS, 5587 E. GRAND RIVER, LLC, BRANDON DENBY, RYAN W. BRADFORD, MICHELLE L. BRADFORD, MICHAEL KUPFER, JILL KUPFER, NANCY NOWAK, DENNIS COURTER, JACQUELINE COURTER, LORI MERITT, MICHAEL F. MERITT, THOMAS KNIVILA, JACQUELINE KNIVILA, THOMAS R. WOLFE, ANN R. WOLFE, ROBERT BIALOWICZ, SANDRA BIALOWICZ, RAYMOND AND HOLLY COPPIELLIE LIFE ESTATE, RAYMOND COPPIELLIE, HOLLY COPPIELLIE, PATRICK J. FISCHER, ROBIN L. FISCHER, MELVIN A. TESCHKER, DEBRA M. KROGE, CHAD NEWTON, RHONDA NEWTON, JOHN S. JONES, RICHARD A. CORRUNKER, LORETTA G. CORRUNKER, JOSEPH TIANO, DENNING FAMILY TRUST, CHARLES DENNING, MARY DENNING, DONNA ANDERSON, MICHAEL D. FARNSWORTH, JEFFREY HOWARD, DARLENE HOWARD, LOUKAS N. KOVANIS, BRADLEY HOYES, KRISTIN HOYES, ELDON HAWES, MARQUERITE E. HAWES, NAKOS KOVANIS, ANTHONY DUBANIK JR., ANNETTE M. DUBANIK, ROBIN FREY, BEVERLY ROONEY, ROBERT NAUGHTON JR., JASON SEE, HEATHER SEE, JEREMY D. GRANTHAM, KAMIL KOWALSKI, SAMANTHA L. BROUGH, SEAN WILSON, MATTHEW MARHOFER, DANIEL ALLEN, STEPHANIE ALLEN, JOHN D. DENBROCK, CHRIS BONK, LYNN BONK, RALPH J. CHRISTENSEN, LAURA M. CHRISTENSEN, KATIE MCALISTER, CLARIUS KEEP AND JERRY DUNN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, CLARIUS KEEP, JERRY DUNN, STEVEN F. LYNCH, JACK AND JUDY PHILLIPS REVOCABLE TRUST, JACK PHILLIPS, RYAN W. HOFFECKER, WILLIAM HOFFECKER, SHARON HOFFECKER, MARY ELLEN TIBALDI, DAVID LARSON, PATRICIA LARSON, DAVID D. AZAR, JENNIFER LEVARIO, DAVID A. BRAUN, BRIGHT PENNY, INC., GERALD MATEVIA, JOYCE MATEVIA, DARIN MARCH, TAMMY PARISIAN, RICK DONALD, and MARK DONALD, Defendants, and PETE BLACK, SUZANNE KOWALSKI, JEFFREY T. BROUGH, TREVOR HAAK, BARBARA HAAK, and PATRICIA LOTH, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and CHAD NEWTON, RHONDA NEWTON, RYAN W. BRADFORD, and MICHELLE L. BRADFORD, Defendants/Third-Party Defendants, and KELLY NOWICKI, NATE PRESSOTTO, AMANDA PRESSOTTO, JIM TIBALDI, JAMES KUDIAWIEC, MARY KUDIAWIEC, MARY KUDIAWIEC, and PATRICIA EILEEN CROCKETT, Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

UNPUBLISHED

Livingston Circuit Court LC No. 18-029855-CZ

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and SHAPIRO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case concerns which subdivision lot owners, if any, have riparian rights to lakefront parks dedicated to the "use of Lot Owners." The trial court determined that the "front-lot owners," i.e., owners whose lots are adjacent to the park areas but not the lakeshore, are the fee owners of the park area between their respective parcels and the lake, and therefore have the sole riparian rights to maintain docks and moor boats. The trial court further determined that the "back-lot owners," i.e., owners whose lots are separated from the park areas by the front lots, have a nonriparian easement to use the park areas for various recreational activities. Appellants, a group comprised of back-lot owners, appeal the trial's court ruling by right. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we reverse the trial court's decision, vacate the judgment and permanent injunction, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

The Glen Echo subdivision plat was dedicated in 1921 and consists of 179 lots. The plat shows park areas in the subdivision that abut Lake Chemung in Genoa Township. Central to this appeal, the plat contains the following dedication "[T]hat the Parks, Paths, and Canals as shown in said plat are hereby dedicated to the use of Lot Owners in said plat."

This case arose out of a dispute regarding the park area in front of lots 35 and 36, which plaintiff Mark Ikle purchased in 2015. There is a six-foot wide walkway between Ikle's lots and the adjacent park area. Previously, an apartment building was located on lots 35 and 36. The apartment building burned down in 2009, and the lots became vacant. Ikle built a residence on the lots and began disputing with certain back-lot owners regarding their use of the park area. Relevant to this appeal, Ikle asserted that the back-lot owners could not maintain docks in the park area. In May 2018, Ikle filed this instant suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the plat dedication merely granted the back-lot owners a nonriparian easement to the park areas. Ikle later filed an amended complaint expressly asserting ownership of the park area.

The original defendants[1] were back-lot owners who had used the park area in front of Ikle's lots for picnics and large gatherings. Two of the original defendants installed docks in the park area to which they moored their boats. The original defendants filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment allowing them to engage in these activities. After a motion by the original defendants, the trial court ordered Ikle to amend his complaint to add all Glen Echo lot owners and Genoa Township as defendants; the Township was later dismissed from the case.

In October 2020, the parties filed dispositive motions under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact). The original defendants argued that the plat dedication provided equal rights to all lot owners for use of the park and that there was no basis in Michigan caselaw to conclude that Ikle obtained exclusive riparian rights to the lake. They further argued that the evidence showed the park area in front of Ikle's lots was historically used for the installation of docks and boat mooring. Ikle argued that he was the owner of the underlying fee in the park area because his land abutted the park, relying on Thies v Howland, 424 Mich. 282; 380 N.W.2d 463 (1985), which held that property separated from the lakeshore by a subdivision walkway had riparian rights. In response, the original defendants argued that the controlling case was Dobie v Morrison, 227 Mich.App. 536; 575 N.W.2d 817 (1998), which distinguished Thies when the frontlot owner's property was separated from the lake by a park.

On March 5, 2021, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting summary disposition to Ikle. After summarizing the procedural history and relevant caselaw, specifically Thies, 424 Mich. 282, and Dobie, 227 Mich.App. 536, the trial court held that the front-lot owners have fee ownership of the park areas between their lots and the lakefront, and that the back-lot owners have an easement to use the park, excluding riparian rights. The trial court observed that Dobie had distinguished a park from a walkway, but nonetheless applied the standard established by Thies and other cases that owners of land abutting any right-of-way which is contiguous to the water are presumed to own the fee in the entire way, subject to an easement, unless a contrary intention appears. The trial court concluded that there was no evidence in this case to counter this presumption. Turning to the scope of the easement held by the back-lot owners, the trial court determined that the back-lot owners could use the park areas for walking, sunbathing, picnicking, barbecues, reasonable fire pits, and access to the lake for purposes of fishing, swimming, and launching small, unmotorized boats.

On March 10, 2022, a judgment and permanent injunction was entered incorporating the trial court's summary-disposition rulings.[2] This appeal followed. Michigan Realtors filed an amicus brief in support of appellants' arguments on appeal. The Township filed a brief requesting that this Court clarify if changes are needed to the recorded plat. Ikle cross-appeals on a narrow issue regarding the trial court's determination that front-lot owners could not store personal property in the park.

II. DISCUSSION
A. FEE OWNERSHIP OF THE PARK AREAS

Appellants first argue the trial court erred by ruling that the front-lot owners are the fee owners of the park areas abutting the lake shore. We agree.[3] Michigan caselaw establishes that all lot owners have an irrevocable easement to the park. Neither the plat language nor the facts of this case support the conclusion that any lot owner has fee ownership of the park areas.

"Land which includes or is bounded by a natural watercourse is defined as riparian." Thies, 424 Mich. at 287-288. "Owners of riparian land enjoy certain exclusive rights, including the rights to erect and maintain docks and to permanently anchor boats off the shore." Morse v Colitti, 317 Mich.App. 526, 534; 896 N.W.2d 15 (2016). "A nonriparian owner, on the other hand, has a right to use the surface of the water in a reasonable manner for such activities as boating, fishing and swimming as well as the right...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT