People v. Broedell

• Decision Date: 28 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 96,96
• Citation: 365 Mich. 201,112 N.W.2d 517
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Peter G. BROEDELL et al., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 517

112 N.W.2d 517

365 Mich. 201

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Peter G. BROEDELL et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 96.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 28, 1961.

John H. Yoe, Detroit, Frank C. Lawson, St. Clair Shores, for appellants.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Nicholas V. Olds, Jerome Maslowski, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Anthony G. Jeffries, Detroit, amicus curiae.

Before the Entire Bench, except KAVANAGH and SMITH, JJ.

DETHMERS, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought by the State to enjoin defendants from making an earth fill or any improvement upon lots claimed to be owned by them, located on the west shore of Lake St. Clair and described as Lots 36 and 37 of Lake St. Clair Gardens Subdivision of part of Private Claim 623 in the City of St. Clair Shores, Macomb County, Michigan. From decree for plaintiff granting the injunction and relief prayed, defendants appeal.

Plaintiff alleged in its bill of complaint that the lots from a part of the bottom of Lake St. Clair, are submerged lands lying lakeward of the water's edge of said lake and are the property of the State of Michigan, held in trust by it for the use and benefit of the people, and that defendants, in making the fill and improvements thereon, are trespassers.

Defendant Peter G. Broedell, Hereinafter called the defendant, in his answer, says he is the owner of the lots, admits that they are on the lake front, but denies that they are submerged, form part of the lake bottom or belong to the State.

It is plaintiff's position that the lots were submerged lands in 1837 when Michigan was admitted into the Union, and thereupon became the property of the State. Accordingly, its reliance is no two so-called submerged land acts, P.A.1899, No. 171 (C.L.1948, § 317.291 et seq. [Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. § 13.1121 ), dedicating unpatented submerged lands to public use, declaring persons locating thereon to be trespassers and providing for the disposition and control of unpatented swamp lands, and also P.A.1955, No. 247 (C.L.S.1956, §§ 322.701-322.709 [Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. and Stat.Ann.1959 Cum.Supp. §§ 13.700(1)-13.700(10)]), authorizing the State department of conservation to grant, convey or lease certain unpatented submerged lake bottom and made land in the Great Lakes and to sell artificially filled lands for not less than 30% of the value of the land.

The proofs show a high degree of fluctuation in the water levels of the lake throughout the years and the seasons and months within those years. It is plaintiff's contention that during most of the history for which records of water levels of the Great Lakes have been kept the lots were under water and that they were so at the time the plat of Lake St. Clair Gardens Subdivision was made and recorded in 1924. Plaintiff alleged and adduced proofs to show that in February of 1956 an ice jam in its inlet, the St. Clair River, caused a temporary lowering of the level of the lake, permitting the lots to be exposed above water and that defendant seized upon this opportunity to make the fill for the purpose of perventing a return of the water over them and thus to capture a portion of the lake bottom and convert it into dry land and property useful for building purposes. Defendant presented proofs to show that the lots were not submerged at the time the plat was recorded and at other times before and after that date. Level of the water at the date of platting does not impress us as particularly important on the question of ownership.

Defendant urges that the filling in of the lots was of such trifling importance to the State as to require the application of the doctrine 'de minimis non curat lex.' The length of shore line involved here may well be considered minute compared to the total of Michigan's Great Lakes shore lines. The opportunities for fishing, fish and bird and plant life propagation, development and preservation dependent on maintenance of the area here involved in its natural state may be insignificant compared to the total in similar areas in the State available for those purposes. Application of that doctrine, however, to the lots in question may involve making it equally so elsewhere. In total consequence, the State's trust interests of the kind mentioned and public rights could be affected to an extent amounting to considerably more than a trifling matter. We do not deem the doctrine applicable here.

Defendant also urges estoppel against the State by reason of the alleged fact that the fill was made on lands west of the water's edge at the time when made and that other property owners had not been prevented from making like fills at about the same time. The title of the State to submerged lands in the Great Lakes is impressed with a trust for the benefit of the public. The State has a duty to protect that trust and may not surrender the rights of the people thereto. State v. Venice of America Land Co., 160 Mich. 680, 125 N.W. 770; Nedtweg v. Wallace, 237 Mich. 14, 208 N.W. 51, 211 N.W. 647. No case for estoppel against the discharge of that State duty is made by the record before us.

The record is replete with maps, charts, plats, pictures and other exhibits, all of which have been carefully examined, bearing on water levels and the submerged or other condition of the lots from time to time through the years and decades. These have given rise to questions as to whether the trust ownership of the State should be held to extend to the all-time high water mark on record, the mean high...