Johnson v. Seifert
1960 Minn. LEXIS 515, 100 N.W.2d 689, 257 Minn. 159 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of land abutting a lake suitable for recreation has the right to make reasonable use of the entire surface of the lake, in common with all other abutting owners, regardless of the ownership of the underlying lakebed.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Johnson and Defendants Seifert owned adjacent properties that both abutted two nonnavigable lakes.
- A section line dividing their properties ran through both lakes.
- Approximately 5% of the water area of each lake was on Johnson's side of the section line, with the remaining 95% on Seifert's side.
- Both lakes were suitable for recreational activities such as fishing and hunting.
- Seifert constructed a fence along the section line, through the water of both lakes.
- The fence physically prevented Johnson from accessing the main body of either lake from his property.
- Seifert also took water from one of the lakes for agricultural irrigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnson (plaintiff) sued Seifert (defendants) in state trial court, seeking an injunction to remove a fence Seifert had built across two shared lakes.
- The trial court found that the lakes were nonnavigable and the lakebeds were privately owned.
- The trial court decreed that each party had exclusive control over the water above their portion of the lakebed and denied Johnson access to the waters over Seifert's land.
- The trial court found Seifert's use of lake water for irrigation to be reasonable.
- Johnson (as plaintiff-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a riparian owner whose property abuts a portion of a lake have the right to reasonably use the entire surface of that lake for recreational purposes, even the parts overlying land owned by other riparian owners?
Opinions:
Majority - Matson, Justice.
Yes. A riparian owner has the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the entire surface of a lake, not just the portion overlying their own land. Riparian rights arise from the ownership of the shore, not the ownership of the lakebed, making the navigability of the lake or title to the bed immaterial for determining these private use rights among abutting owners. The court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Lamprey v. Danz, which held that ownership of the lakebed conferred exclusive control of the overlying waters. This new 'reasonable use' rule holds that all abutting owners share a common right to use the entire lake for purposes like boating, fishing, and swimming, provided that such use is reasonable and does not unduly interfere with the correlative rights of other owners. The court affirmed, however, that the Seiferts' use of water for irrigation was a reasonable riparian use as it did not substantially harm Johnson by lowering the water level.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Minnesota water law by explicitly overruling the 60-year-old precedent of Lamprey v. Danz, which followed the 'common law' rule of exclusive dominion over waters based on land ownership. By adopting the 'civil law' or 'reasonable use' rule, the court aligned Minnesota with other water-rich states that prioritize the shared recreational utility of lakes over strict property line divisions on the water. This case dramatically expands the rights of landowners with small shorelines on private lakes, granting them access to the entire water surface. The decision is foundational for resolving future disputes between lakeside neighbors and emphasizes a policy of common enjoyment over exclusive control.
