-
Non-Owner Riparian Rights
So an acquaintance came to me with an issue, that I am mostly not getting involved in, aside from help point him in the correct direction.
History, Bought a cabin some 20 years ago, 500 feet from a small inland lake, just outside of what many people would call a resort plat, lots of 50′ cabin lots. Cabin owner always had a dock, and the removable dock came with the cabin purchase. This dock was placed on an extension of a county road, and his is not the only ‘off water’ lot do do this as it is fairly common in this are of the lake, and there was one other ‘historical’ dock installed there along with his.
I don’t have a copy of the plat on the computer to attach, but will describe: The road goes to the water, and forms a T, and also runs along the shoreline. The plat shows the lots ending at the lake-road, with its ROW appearing to extend to the water. No-where in the plat is there a statement that says: “lots extend to the waters edge” pretty much required in Michigan for Riparian rights.2013, the owner adjacent to the road has rallied other owners, and filed suit to get rid of the back-lot docks. The plaintiff has an ‘improvement map’ from a local surveyor showing the docks and lots as if they were extended out into the lake, neglecting the fact that the platted lots clearly stop at the road (which is in use and not abandoned), and any issues of bending the lines at a meander, or high water line for equitable ownership.
In my opinion this is really not a surveying problem, it is a legal one, and I have already told him to retain a good fairly local riparian lawyer (as this is a growing issue in Michigan). Still he asked me to look at his maps and such, and since this is an interesting case, I agreed. That and the fact that the plaintiff just seems like a bully with money and he plans on buying his way right or wrong.
Some more interesting items: Looking at the plat, there are no notes which would change my opinion that the road is the only thing with true riparian rights, anywhere along this stretch. Yet most of the ‘lakefront lots’ have docks in front of them, mostly on an extension of where their lot would have access. Interesting to know that NONE of them have a permit to install a dock on ROW. While the back-lot docks seem to be installed in virtually the exact same place year after year, the plaintiff over the last few years installs is dock closer and closer to the extension of the access road. This last season the main deck crossed the extension of his lot line (road ROW line) AND then he docks his boat on the roadside, further hindering access at the road extension area. (Hence my view of his bullying)
There are 2 main defendants on this, my acquaintance, and another. The other defendant in my view would have more of a correct claim, as they would be considered a true ‘back lot’ or an off-lake lot in the same plat as the lake-view lots. My acquaintance has a M&B parcel just outside of this plat. But again, since the plat is mute on the lake access issue, does ANYONE really have a right to be there? The plaintiff may be shooting himself in the foot and killing EVERYONES access!
I’m meeting with them on Monday night, and would appreciate any comments that I could pass along, or case-law in Michigan or great lakes states. Has anyone else worked on a similar case they could share?
Log in to reply.