Prescriptive easement over a private subdivision road; MCL 600.5801(4); Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Props, LLC; Slander of title limitations period; MCL 600.5805(11); Accrual; Equity Funding, Inc v Village of Milford; Fraudulent concealment of claim; MCL 600.5855; Sills v Oakland Gen Hosp; Trespass; Attorney fees under bylaws; Frivolousness sanctions; MCL 600.2591; Fleet Bus Credit, LLC v Krapohl Ford Lincoln Mercury Co; Homeowners association (HOA)

The court held that defendant did not establish a prescriptive easement over the subdivision road and that the trial court properly enforced the plat dedication, rejected the fiduciary-duty counterclaim, dismissed plaintiff-HOA’s slander of title and trespass claims, and denied attorney fees. Thus, it affirmed. The HOA alleged violations of deed restrictions after defendant removed trees larger than six inches in diameter and improved a driveway on Lot 1 without submitting required plans, and it sought to bar his use of Carnegie Trail to reach his adjacent parcel (Lot 0). The trial court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting direct access from Carnegie Trail to Lot 0. On appeal, the court held defendant failed to meet the “clear and cogent evidence” standard because the record showed “infrequent use of Carnegie Trail to directly access Lot 0” and that he “more often than not” parked on Lot 1 and then proceeded to Lot 0, which defeated continuity of use. As to the injunction, the court emphasized that the dedication language stating that “CARNEGIE TRAIL IS PRIVATE AND FOR THE USE OF THE LOT OWNERS OF CARNEGIE WOODS SUBDIVISION ONLY” was unambiguous and thus, the trial court’s injunctive relief prohibiting defendant “from using Carnegie Trail to travel directly to Lot 0, but allowing unrestricted use if traveling to Lot 1, was proper.” As to the HOA’s arguments for broader injunctive relief, it offered no proof that defendant’s permitted use of the road “would burden Carnegie Trail in a way not contemplated by the Proprietor’s Certificate,” and it noted the HOA conceded it was “impossible to tell whether wear and tear on Carnegie Trail was attributable” to defendant’s activity. On his fiduciary-duty counterclaim, the court found no abuse of rule enforcement because defendant admitted that he “did not submit any plans or specifications to the architectural committee” and that the removed trees were over six inches in diameter, so the HOA properly acted under its governing documents. As to slander of title, the court held the claim was time barred and it rejected fraudulent concealment because the HOA did not plead any concealment and the easement in question did not exist at the time of defendant’s 1995 letter. The trespass claim failed because “a claim for violating deed restrictions sounds in breach of contract, not in trespass.” Finally, the court held attorney fees were correctly denied because the bylaws did not “specifically provide” for fees and nothing in the record established frivolousness.