Schofield v. Dingman

• Decision Date: 01 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 226.,226.
• Citation: Schofield v. Dingman, 261 Mich. 611, 247 N.W. 67 (Mich. 1933)
• Parties: SCHOFIELD et al. v. DINGMAN et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

261 Mich. 611

247 N.W. 67

SCHOFIELD et al.

v.DINGMAN et al.

No. 226.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 1, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County, in Chancery; Charles E. White, Judge.

Bill by Hugo Schofield and others against William L. Dingman and others. From the decree, some of plaintiffs and all of defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Stratton & Evans, of St. Joseph, for plaintiffs and appellants.

William R. Stevens, of St. Joseph, and Gore & Harvey, of Benton Harbor, for defendants and appellants.

WIEST, Justice.

Thomas P. Turner owned land bordering Lake Michigan in Berrien county, and had a surveyor prepare a plat of a part thereof, designating lots by numbers, together with dimensions. This plat was not recorded. Along the lake was quite a uniform bluff about 50 feet above the water, and at times, especially when there was high water, the water washed the foot of the bluff, but most of the time there was a sand beach between the bluff and the water. The plat was laid out on top of the bluff upward of 167 feet from the meander line, with seven lots fronting a private roadway 125 feet from the rear of the lots at the edge of the bluff, and with lots on the other side of the roadway and, therefore, some distance from the edge of the bluff. Turner planned to sell lots to persons for summer resort purposes and, to induce purchases, represented that ‘riparian rights' went with the lots and, in some instances, so stated in conveyances. Mr. Turner died and defendants Dingman acquired his rights to the land between the bluff and the water, and claimed exclusive right to possession and control thereof. Thereupon plaintiffs, owners of lots, and Mrs. Wallace, owner of a tract by metes and bounds, but also stating, ‘to the bank of Lake Michigan,’ filed the bill herein to have their rights to the beach adjudged, claiming title thereto by adverse possession and under grant of riparian rights and representations that riparian rights were appurtenant to their lots. The circuit judge found no title by adverse possession, decreed the private ways, inclusive of one to the lake, permanent for use in common by lot owners, imposed a permanent easement of right of enjoyment of beach uses upon the land below the bluff, and granted special easement rights to owners of lots abutting the bluff. Some of the plaintiffs and all of the defendants appealed.

We find no title established by adverse possession. Stairways down the bluff, bathhouses, and boat shelters were of too temporary a nature to indicate adverse possession and the time of their erection too uncertain to furnish controlling evidence. Some fixtures, more permanent in nature and of recent installation, were ordered removed. ‘Riparian rights,’ accorded lot owners separated from the beach by intervening lots, can be given no greater meaning than right of access to the beach and enjoyment thereof for the...