Public right-of-way; Consent judgment; Township jurisdiction; MCL 221.20; Width of public highway; Removal of trees & signage; Reasonable use; Smith v Straughn; Little v Kin; Abandonment of roadway; Ambs v Kalamazoo Cnty Rd Comm’n; Nonuse

The court held that plaintiff-Township had jurisdiction over the disputed portion of Steiner Road, had authority to require the removal of trees planted within the public right-of-way, and had not abandoned the property. The parties previously settled a quiet-title dispute through a 2007 consent judgment providing that the portion of Steiner Road from the east edge of defendants’ garage to Lake Bellaire was a Township road. After defendants later planted trees and placed private-property signs on the disputed strip, the Township obtained summary disposition requiring restoration of the property. A separate quiet-title action alleged that the Township had abandoned the strip. On appeal, the court first rejected defendants’ contention that the consent judgment did not establish the width of the Township’s jurisdiction. MCL 221.20 provides that a public highway situated on a section line is 66 feet wide, with 33 feet on each side of the section line. Because defendants presented no evidence that Steiner Road was not a public highway, “[u]nder the terms of the consent judgment and consistent with MCL 221.20, the Township retained jurisdiction over 66 feet of road” extending to the lake. The court also concluded defendants’ use of the property interfered with the Township’s right to maintain public access. “The trees were planted in the public right of way that the Township had the authority to maintain for the purpose of ensuring public access to Lake Bellaire,” giving it authority to require their removal and transplanting. Finally, defendants failed to establish abandonment, which required both an intent to relinquish the property and external acts carrying out that intent. The Township had installed signage, boulders, and later a fence, hired a company to maintain the property for 14 years, and continued to facilitate public access. Defendants offered no contrary evidence, and nonuse alone would not establish abandonment. Affirmed.