Dispute over land & riparian rights/boundaries; Holton v Ward; Riparian boundary apportionment on an oblong lake; Heeringa v Petroelje; Whether riparian rights existed; Declaratory action; MCR 2.605(A)(1); Lansing Sch Educ Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Educ

The court affirmed a judgment establishing the parties’ land and riparian boundary lines and declaring plaintiffs the exclusive owners of the riparian area adjacent to their lot on Loon Lake. The parties own adjacent lakefront parcels on a curved shoreline. After plaintiffs purchased their property, defendants asserted their riparian rights ran along the curve and into the water in front of plaintiffs’ dock, leading to dueling surveys and a trial. The trial court credited plaintiffs’ experts (CH and TH), found Loon Lake natural, adopted a pie-slice apportionment to the lake’s centerline, and ordered the boundaries recorded. On appeal, the court first rejected defendants’ argument that Loon Lake is man-made and thus conveys no riparian rights. “The parties’ experts agreed that the location of Loon Lake likely was not accurately depicted on [a prior] survey because the surveyors were not instructed to survey the exact locations of lakes. The fact that it is not precisely located on the . . . survey therefore does not establish that the lake was man-made, and defendants did not otherwise establish that it is man-made. Because Michigan law is clear that ‘riparian rights adhere to land that abuts a natural watercourse,’ the trial court did not err by finding that plaintiffs have riparian rights arising from their Loon Lake property.” The court also rejected defendants’ challenge to the boundary apportionment, noting the proper method on an oblong lake is to draw a line “from the point where the property line met the original lakeshore to a median center line of the lake as nearly perpendicular as possible,” and that CH followed Heeringa. The trial court found plaintiffs “demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence the accuracy of the location of the land and riparian boundaries,” and defendants “did not present evidence” that the surveys or calculations were wrong. Finally, the court rejected defendants’ contention that the relief exceeded the pleadings because plaintiffs had not brought a quiet-title claim, explaining that declaratory relief was proper since “determining plaintiffs’ riparian property rights necessitated determining the property boundaries of plaintiffs’ land,” and defendants could not deploy an “appellate parachute” to avoid a declaration they themselves sought in their counterclaim.