Property partition; MCL 600.3332; MCR 3.401 & 3.402; Inverse condemnation; Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC v Michigan; Mays v Governor; A property owner’s right to access their property from public highways; Scholma v Ottawa Cnty Rd Comm’n; Property value decline element; Complaint amendment under MCR 2.116(I)(5)

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the trial court did not err in (1) partitioning the real property in question and (2) granting defendant-Road Commission summary disposition of plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claim. A “portion in the northeastern corner of the Property was effectively cut off from the rest of the Property by” flooding. On the eastern side, the Property is bordered “by 105th Avenue, which has historically provided access to” it. Defendant-Evart Land Holdings’ owner (who also owns property adjacent to each side of the Property) “petitioned the Road Commission to abandon a portion of” 105th Avenue. Plaintiff objected. The Road Commission conducted an investigation and, pursuant to its inspector’s recommendation, it “voted to abandon the requested portion of 105th Avenue.” Plaintiff sued. As to the partition proceedings, the trial court appointed a partition commissioner under MCR 3.402. But it did not agree with the commissioner’s determination and instead “split the Property into two halves, with plaintiff receiving the eastern portion and Evart receiving the western portion.” Evart argued that it erred in reversing the commissioner’s recommendation and in partitioning the Property. As to the first argument, the court noted there “are no requirements for the [trial] court to follow the commissioner’s report. In fact, [it] may choose to reject the report, and there are no requirements for any findings to be made if this occurs.” As to the partitioning decision, “awarding plaintiff the eastern portion, which bordered 105th Avenue, would provide easier access for plaintiff, and met the parties’ plans for their respective parcels, made equitable sense based on the circumstances for both sides.” Further, as to a sale in lieu of partition, the court found no error in the trial court’s determination “that Evart failed to overcome the burden in favor of partition[.]” As to plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claim, while the trial court erred in granting the Road Commission summary disposition under (C)(8), summary disposition under (C)(10) was proper. The claim failed because plaintiff did not show “a vested property right under state law that has been substantially interfered with by the Road Commission’s abandonment [of] portions of 105th Avenue.” Affirmed.