Quiet title action over a section of road right of way; Abandonment; Ambs v Kalamazoo Cnty Rd Comm’n; Villadsen v Mason Cnty Rd Comm’n; Applicability of the definitions in MCL 247.660c

Concluding that the record supported the trial court’s ruling that plaintiffs did not prove abandonment of any portion of the road at issue, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants-road commission (RC) and township of plaintiffs’ quiet title claim. At issue was “the ownership of an approximately 330-foot section of a 66-foot right of way for Harrington Road” in the township. The road “becomes a gravel road for several hundred feet before it reaches a guardrail with a stop sign and a no parking sign.” The road is neither paved nor gravel east of the guardrail. Lake Huron is 330 feet east of the guardrail. Plaintiffs asserted they were entitled to quiet title to the road “east of the guardrail because under Michigan’s common law the [RC] abandoned Harrington Road east of the guardrail.” They argued that the RC’s intent to abandon it was shown by its “failure to certify the easternmost 204.6 feet of Harrington Road.” The trial court reasoned that the RC “would not have been likely to keep the eastern portion of Harrington Road certified after the enactment of Act 51 because the [RC] would not have intended to use collected taxes to maintain that portion of” the road for vehicular use. Thus, the trial court found that the RC’s “non-certification of the 204.6 feet at the easternmost edge of Harrington Road did not demonstrate intent to abandon the eastern portion of” the road. The court agreed, concluding the “fact that the non-certified 204.6 feet primarily consists of beach reflects the nature of the land at issue rather than any intent to abandon it.” As to plaintiffs’ failure to maintain argument, the RC’s “act of placing the guardrail and stop sign at the end of the gravel portion of Harrington Road constituted adequate care of the roadway beyond the guardrail under the circumstances because it prevented vehicular use beyond the guardrail while not preventing pedestrian traffic.” In addition, the RC’s inaction as to the boulders placed by private citizens “to prevent motorcycle and ATV traffic” did not reveal “an intent to abandon the eastern portion of Harrington Road, but is instead consistent with the intended use of the road.” Further, the record supported “the trial court’s finding that public use of the eastern portion of Harrington Road has been consistent seasonal use.”