Interpretation of a plat dedication; Whether the dedication’s language was ambiguous; Effect of MCL 560.253; Martin v Beldean; Conveyance of a fee interest in riparian land; 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel

Holding that the plat dedication language at issue “unambiguously conveyed a fee interest that included riparian or littoral rights to all the property owners identified in the dedication,” the court affirmed summary disposition for plaintiffs. The property in dispute was a private park (O’Connor Park) in a platted subdivision. “Historically, both the platted and unplatted property owners identified in the park’s dedication have enjoyed the use of the park’s littoral or riparian lands.” But early in 2023, “some of the owners of Lots 11 to 19 sent written notice to” plaintiffs, owners of the unplatted property, “asserting that plaintiffs had the right to use the park, but did not have any littoral or riparian rights to” it. The trial court ruled, among other things, “that the plain language of the plat dedication granted an equal fee simple interest in O’Connor Park to the platted and unplatted property owners identified in the dedication.” On appeal, the court concluded “the dedication plainly states that O’Connor Park is dedicated ‘for the private use’ of the owners of the identified platted and unplatted properties.” While defendants asserted the language was ambiguous, “the lack of language defining, clarifying, modifying, or restricting the term ‘private use,’ does not cause the provisions in the dedication to irreconcilably conflict so as to render the dedication ambiguous. . . . Instead, the fact that the language is not so limited means that any and all private uses are permitted, including the use of riparian or littoral rights.” Defendants next argued that even if the language was “unambiguous, MCL 560.253 provides that the dedication to the identified owners is ‘for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no others.’” They cited Martin in support, asserting that under its reasoning, “the owners identified in the dedication may use O’Connor Park only as a park and not for some other purposes. The plat, however, clearly reflects that O’Connor Park is bounded by Lake Charlevoix and is therefore riparian or littoral land. The private dedication conveying a fee interest to the parties identified in the dedication, therefore, conveyed a fee interest in riparian land.” In light of “the broad, unambiguous language dedicating the park for the private use of the parties identified in the dedication,” the court found “that the owners of the identified properties can use O’Connor Park as a park on riparian land, which would include the right to install and maintain a dock or to hoist and dock boats.”