Ownership of a strip of beachfront land; Plat dedication & validity of deeds; Little v Hirschman; Adverse possession; Use of private subdivision roads; Easement by necessity; Trespass; Joinder of necessary parties

The court held that the trial court correctly ruled “that defendants collectively own the strip of land known as Parcel H; they have an easement by necessity to use the Sunset Beach subdivision’s roads to access Indian Lake via that strip of land; and plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs likewise have an easement over Parcel H to access Indian Lake.” These consolidated appeals arose out of a dispute between the residents of two platted subdivisions as to the use of private roads to access the “Lake as well as ownership of a 15-foot-wide strip of beachfront land on that lake called ‘Parcel H.’” The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Little “that where a 1913 plat dedicated the private use of two parks to subdivision lot owners, other lot owners were ‘estopped from claiming exclusive rights in the parks,’ because the lot owners did not own the parks.” Similarly, here the “Sunset Beach subdivision plat at issue was recorded in 1946, which means that the Sunset Beach lot owners hold an irrevocable easement, not a fee interest, in Parcel H.” Further, the court held that “the plat dedication language ‘to the use of’ supports the trial court’s interpretation that the lot owners held an easement over Parcel H and not fee ownership.” The undisputed facts in the record reflected “that the 1946 plat granted a nonexclusive irrevocable easement to the Sunset Beach subdivision lot owners, and actual fee ownership of Parcel H was properly conveyed to defendants.” Thus, the court rejected “intervening plaintiffs’ arguments that they or other lot owners were entitled to exclusive use of Parcel H, that conveyance of Parcel H to defendants violated the terms of the plat, and that defendants’ deeds required reformation to strike the language conveying their ownership interest in that property. The trial court” properly granted summary disposition as to those issues. The court also rejected intervening plaintiffs’ claim “that they own Parcel H through adverse possession.” Turning to the use of the roads issue, the court concluded that the record was “clear that Parcel H and the Sunset Beach subdivision land were both previously owned by the Indian Lake Company, Parcel H is landlocked, and the only way to access [it] is through the Sunset Beach subdivision’s private roads. Therefore, the trial court did not err by determining that defendants held an easement by necessity over those roads.” Given the lack of any material disputes of fact on this issue, “summary disposition was appropriate.” Also, the court found that there was “no evidence that defendants’ activities on the Sunset Beach subdivision roads go beyond the reasonable exercise of the use granted by their easement.” Thus, plaintiffs’ trespass claim was properly dismissed. Finally, the court concluded that “the remaining Sunset Beach subdivision lot owners are not necessary parties. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants to join them as counterdefendants in the action.” Affirmed.