Request to vacate platted roads; The Land Division Act (LDA); Beach v Lima Twp; Whether plaintiff had to show an existing substantive property right in the roads to be vacated

Holding that the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiff had “to show an existing substantive property right in the streets” it sought to have vacated before this requested relief could be granted under the LDA, the court affirmed the judgment denying plaintiff’s request. As an initial matter, the court rejected defendants’ argument “that plaintiff’s failure to address the trial court’s third finding” (about nonuniform amendments to covenants) required dismissal of the case because the appeal necessarily failed given that the outcome would not change. The court disagreed “because denial of relief under this issue does not preclude relief under the other issues plaintiff raised.” But it also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred in “finding that plaintiff was required to show an existing substantive property right in the streets sought to be vacated before such relief could be granted under the LDA.” The trial court relied on Beach, and the court likewise applied that case on appeal. Similar to the Beach plaintiffs, plaintiff “sought to vacate previously platted, but never developed, roads. But unlike the plaintiffs in Beach, plaintiff never argued a substantive property right through adverse possession or otherwise. Rather, [it] merely argued that it preferred to have the roads vacated. Because plaintiff failed to explain how its alleged interest in the roads was ‘traceable to the plat or the platting process,’ the LDA was not the proper avenue for relief in this case.” The court noted that the “proper avenue would have instead been for plaintiff to: (1) first, legally establish a substantive property interest in the roads, that was not traceable to the plat nor the platting process; (2) then, move, under the LDA, to have the plat revised to reflect that newly recognized property right.” Given that plaintiff did not show “a current substantive property right in the streets sought to be vacated, the trial court did not err by denying” its requested relief.