Acceptance of a road dedication; 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel; Marx v Department of Commerce; Use of the road; Whether plaintiff had to bring an action under the Land Division Act (LDA) rather than a declaratory judgment action; Beach v Lima Twp (Beach II)

In this dispute over the use of a road (Lake Road) on the shore of Lake Huron, the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the county had accepted the dedication of the road to the public. It also affirmed summary disposition for defendants as to plaintiff-property owner’s request that the defendants who were lot owners may only use the road north of M-25 to access the lake. The court rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff had to bring an action under the LDA rather than a declaratory judgment action. An “action under the LDA is not required to establish a disputed property right; rather, ‘the act allows a court to alter a plat to reflect property rights already in existence.’” A declaratory judgment action was appropriate given that plaintiff “sought to determine existing rights with respect to Lake Road north of M-25[.]” She asserted that the county never accepted the road’s 1941 dedication and thus, the offer must have lapsed “and the disputed property must have reverted to the abutting landowners, i.e.,” her predecessors. But for her claim to be successful, “this reversion must have taken place before the original proprietors or their heirs executed” a Release in 1972 that “purported to convey the land in fee simple to the county.” She failed to establish “that the offer to dedicate was not accepted, or that it lapsed, in the 30 years between the recording of the plat and the execution of the Release.” It was undisputed that the offer was never formally withdrawn, and that the proprietors or their assignees never acted toward the road in a “manner inconsistent with public use.” Further, the evidence showed that the county road commission ordered “the expenditure of public funds for the use of Lake Road as a public road, and otherwise acted in a manner consistent with its control over the property.” The court concluded that either the plat dedication “was accepted at some point before plaintiff filed suit, or the dedicated property was” conveyed to the county via the Release. Either way, the trial court was correct that “the county possessed an ownership interest in Lake Road as a public highway and that plaintiff had no ownership interest.” It also did not abuse its discretion in declining to declare the lot owners’ rights as to the road. The remedy for a landowner “aggrieved by the conduct of members of the public using an abutting public road is generally” in contacting the police or in nuisance and trespass law.