Whether subdivision back-lot owners had riparian rights; Effect of fee ownership of a park; Dobie v Morrison; Whether a plat dedication easement gave defendants the right to moor & dock boats at the park; “Use”; Principle that mooring & docking boats are riparian rights; Thies v Howland; Principle that a deeded easement does not include riparian rights; Little v Kin; Easement by prescription; Astemborski v Manetta; Period of adversity

The court held that the trial court erred in ruling that defendants-back-lot subdivision owners had riparian rights by virtue of fee ownership of a lakefront neighborhood park (Park A). It also held that the plat dedication easement did not give them the right to moor or dock boats at the park, and that they failed to establish an easement by prescription. Thus, it vacated in part and reversed in part the trial court’s rulings, and remanded. On summary disposition, the trial court determined “‘that those properties that are separated from the lake only by the Park have riparian rights,’ meaning all defendants’ properties had riparian rights except for” two whose property did not border Park A. Concluding that the trial court “misread Dobie in reaching this conclusion,” the court vacated that portion of its ruling. While it agreed that the factual distinction “between the Dobie plat and this plat (namely, the shape of the park) is unavailing, the trial court overlooked the critical legal conclusion that the Dobie plaintiffs were the owners in fee of the park by virtue of their being ‘successors in interest to the plattors’ and the fact that the plat dedication did not indicate otherwise. Dobie was not a generalized grant of riparian rights to all properties separated from waterfront by a park.” As to the plat dedication easement, the court noted that mooring “and docking boats are riparian rights” and that a “deeded easement does not include riparian rights.” It noted that there was “no record evidence that the plattors intended, at the time the Plat Dedication was enacted, that all lot owners would have use of Park A that resembled riparian rights, including mooring boats and installing docks and boat lifts.” The court concluded that while “defendants (and all lot owners in the Plat) hold an easement to use Park A,” the Plat Dedication’s plain language “providing the easement does not permit defendants to use the park in the way that riparian owners may (e.g., mooring and docking boats).” And while the trial court found that they established a prescriptive easement allowing them to engage in such riparian activities, the court disagreed, finding that the length of adversity did not satisfy the required 15-year period.