Application of the General Property Tax Act (GPTA) to easements for a billboard; MCL 211.78k(5)(e); Whether the easements were beyond the statute’s scope & invalid; Whether they were not “true easements”; Blackhawk Dev Corp v Village of Dexter; Whether they could not be assigned & were now void; Whether they were appurtenant or in gross; Whether they violated public policy

Rejecting plaintiff-Harper Land Company’s (HLC) arguments that the billboard easements at issue were beyond the GPTA’s scope and otherwise invalid, the court held that HLC was not entitled to relief on appeal. Since 2000, defendant/counterplaintiff-Outfront Media leased the parcel of real property involved in the case to display a billboard. In 2011, defendant-Carll purchased the property and entered into a lease (the Lease Agreement) with Outfront. He also later entered into an agreement with a nonparty (F) granting it four perpetual easements over the property (the Easement Agreement), which was recorded. As part of that Agreement, Carll also assigned F his rights under the Lease Agreement. The property was later forfeited to defendant-county treasurer and placed in foreclosure in 3/19. It went unredeemed. In 7/19, F assigned its rights under both Agreements to defendant/counterplaintiff-Outdoor Equities. A copy of F’s assignment of the Easement Agreement was recorded. In 9/19, HLC purchased the property at auction. Under “MCL 211.78k(5)(e), ‘all existing recorded and unrecorded interests in [a foreclosed] property are extinguished, except a visible or recorded easement . . . .’” HLC did not directly challenge this statute’s validity or dispute that the easements “were ‘visible or recorded’ as required by” the provision. Rather, it argued that they were “beyond the statute’s scope and otherwise invalid because (1) they are not ‘true easements,’ (2) they could not be assigned by [F] to Outdoor and are thus now void, and (3) they violate public policy.” As to the first argument, HLC contended that the easements “effectively grant Outdoor a fee simple interest in the Property.” But the court found that HLC failed to show that the Easement “Agreement’s easements, burdensome as they may be, do not constitute . . . ‘true easements’ such that they would not survive foreclosure under MCL 211.78k(5)(e).” Next, while the court agreed “with HLC that the easements at issue are in gross,” it disagreed that they could not survive F’s assignment to Outdoor. Finally, HLC failed to show “that its public-policy arguments are ‘clearly rooted in the law,’” so as to provide it a path to relief here. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s partial award of summary disposition to Outfront and Outdoor.