Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Highways Act; County-to-city transfer; MCL 247.852; County Road Law; MCL 224.18; Supersession; MCL 247.861; Highway authority; Geographic restriction; Acer Paradise, Inc v Kalkaska Cnty Rd Comm’n; Declaratory judgment

The court held that the Transfer Act, not MCL 224.18, governed the 2006 transfer of jurisdiction over the disputed road section from the county road commission to plaintiff-City. The City sued after defendants placed a chain across a short section of Old Pinckney Road, asserting the section had been abandoned and belonged to them. The trial court ruled that MCL 224.18 barred the City from acquiring jurisdiction because the disputed section was outside the City’s municipal boundary. It granted defendants partial summary disposition on the City’s declaratory-judgment claim. On appeal, the court held that the trial court applied the wrong statute. Under Acer Paradise, the Transfer Act applies to transfers “from a county to a city or village,” while MCL 224.18 applies to transfers from a county to a township. Because the transferee here was a city, “the Transfer Act—not MCL 224.18—governs this case.” The court further held that the Transfer Act contains no geographic restriction requiring the transferred highway to be within the transferee’s municipal boundary, and courts cannot read such a restriction into the statute. Thus, the City stated a viable claim that it had jurisdiction over the disputed section, and defendants’ counterclaim based on MCL 224.18 failed as a matter of law. Reversed and remanded.