Little v. Kin

Michigan Court of Appeals
644 N.W.2d 375, 249 Mich. App. 502 (2002)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

While riparian ownership rights cannot be severed from the land, a riparian owner may validly grant an easement to non-riparian backlot owners that conveys the right to use riparian rights, including the construction and maintenance of a boat dock, provided this was the grantor's intent.

Facts:

Following a fire in 1974, a corporation subdivided a lakefront property on Pine Lake into two waterfront lots and four backlots.
To maximize the value of the backlots, the corporation recorded an easement granting backlot owners 'access to and use of the riparian rights' over a specific 66-by-30-foot section of the waterfront.
Plaintiffs purchased a waterfront lot in 1977 with notice of this recorded easement.
Defendants subsequently purchased backlots that benefited from the easement.
Around 1988, a boat dock was constructed on the easement area.
Defendants used the dock and the easement area for boating, sunbathing, and picnicking.
Plaintiffs planted thorny bushes and landscape timbers to obstruct the easement area.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs filed suit in the trial court seeking an injunction to remove the dock and a declaration of rights.
Defendants filed a counter-complaint alleging that Plaintiffs were interfering with their use of the easement.
Both parties filed motions for summary disposition regarding the scope of the easement.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Plaintiffs, ruling that backlot owners could not maintain a dock as a matter of law.
Defendants appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

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 an easement granting non-riparian backlot owners 'access to and use of the riparian rights' to a lake include the right to build and maintain a boat dock?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Saad

Yes, an easement may convey the right to construct a dock if the language and circumstances indicate such intent. The court reasoned that while riparian ownership rights cannot be severed from the land to create a new riparian estate, a riparian owner generally has the right to grant an easement to non-riparian owners to enjoy specific uses of the water. Relying on Thies v. Howland and Thompson v. Enz, the court held that the scope of such an easement is a question of fact based on the grantor's intent. Therefore, the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that non-riparian owners cannot maintain a dock; the determination requires analyzing the specific text of the easement ('use of riparian rights') and whether the dock constitutes an unreasonable interference with the servient estate.

Analysis:

This case creates a critical distinction in Michigan property law between the severance of riparian ownership (which is prohibited) and the granting of riparian use rights via easement (which is permitted). It protects the property values of backlot owners who purchased land with the expectation of lake privileges. The decision emphasizes that disputes over dock rights in 'funnel' developments must be resolved by looking at the specific intent of the original grantor and the language of the easement, rather than applying a blanket prohibition against non-riparian docks.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Little v. Kin (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"