Action to quiet title; Right to use & maintain the disputed portion of a public right of way; MCL 224.19b(1); “Adjacent”; Rights of an owner of property abutting upon a street; 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel; Trespass; Easement claim; Alleged violation of MCL 247.2413 & 750.382(1); Equitable & injunctive relief; Waiver; Monroe County Road Commission (MCRC)

The court held that “there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendants did not trespass by” (1) trimming tree branches overhanging the public road right of way (ROW) at issue or (2) landscaping the ROW. As to plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, they waived review of any claim of error related to the trial court’s order as to landscaping and future tree branch trimming. And “the trial court’s determination of the parties’ mowing responsibilities was not outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” It also did not err in denying plaintiffs injunctive relief as they did not establish “they had an exclusive right of possession of the public road [ROW] adjacent to their property.” In this quiet title action, plaintiffs appealed “the trial court’s order denying their motion for an injunction, dismissing their trespass claims, and granting the parties authority to maintain the public” ROW, subject to the restrictions of the county road commission (nonparty-MCRC) and the local township. Plaintiffs contended genuine issues of material fact existed as to “who has the right to use and maintain the disputed portion of the public” ROW and the relief to which they were entitled. The court disagreed. They “claimed an easement in the [ROW] between their property line and Washington Boulevard and contended that defendants trespassed on their easement.” However, they failed to offer evidence establishing “that they hold a private easement in the [ROW]. Rather, MCRC holds a public easement for the road.” They further “alleged that defendants trespassed by trimming trees that overhang” the ROW. The trial court ruled “that neither of the parties owned the [ROW] and, as adjacent property owners, defendants were authorized to maintain” it. The court noted that MCL 224.19b(1) provides that an “‘adjacent property owner is not required to obtain a permit for work incidental to the maintenance of the [ROW] lying outside of the shoulder and roadway.’” The statute does not define adjacent so the court consulted Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed), which defines the word “as ‘[l]ying near or close to, but not necessarily touching.’ Consistent with this definition, defendants are adjacent property owners.” And the court found that none “of the provisions cited by plaintiffs grant them a right of exclusive possession of the” ROW. Affirmed.