ROBERT MARTIN V JOHN R REDMOND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Opinion
Chief Justice
Maura D. Corrigan
Justices
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
FILED MARCH 31, 2004
ROBERT MARTIN and CATHY MARTIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellee,
v
No. 120932
DAVID A. BELDEAN, LISA A.
BELDEAN, CAROL ANN ROOTA, JAMES
R. STEFFAN, KATHRYN E. STEFFAN,
LOIS HALL also known as LOIS A.
HALL, DON M. PROCTOR, Trustee,
ROBERT P. CRAFT, LINDA M. CRAFT,
DAVID A. KAMULSKI, DONALD E.
NELSON, SHIRLEY M. NELSON, PETER
R. CAVAN, KATHY A. DEGASPERIS,
WILLIAM E. STANISCI, TERESA M.
STANISCI, MILTON R. BRITTAIN,
KATHLEEN M. BRITTAIN, JEFFREY M.
WOOLLARD, LYNNE M. WOOLLARD,
TERRY M. WEIR, CHRISTINE M. WEIR,
RODGER D. HALL, ERSA M. HALL,
RODGER O. PLATZ, SANDRA PLATZ,
JOHN E. KARGETTA, JANET B.
KARGETTA, EDNA SMITH, BARTON J.
HODGE, and SUZAN K. HODGE,
Defendants,
and
JOHN R. REDMOND, BARBARA E. REDMOND,
EDWARD DAVIES, KAREN A. DAVIES,
SAMUEL D. BRANDT, and LOIS A. BRANDT,
Defendants-Appellants,
_______________________________
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
TAYLOR, J.
We granted leave to appeal in this case to consider
the Court of Appeals holding that a private dedication of
an outlot1 in a subdivision plat2 recorded in November 1969
is not recognized by Michigan law.
We hold that private
dedications in plats filed after the effective date of MCL
560.253(1), January 1, 1968, are expressly recognized and
allowed under Michigan law.3
We
further
hold
that
the
exclusive
means
available
when seeking to vacate, correct, or revise a dedication in
a recorded plat is a lawsuit filed pursuant to MCL 560.221
through 560.229.
1
MCL 560.102(n) states that an “outlot” is “a lot set
aside for purposes other than a development site, park, or
other land dedicated to public use or reserved to private
use.”
2
MCL 560.102(a) provides that “plat” means “a map or
chart of a subdivision of land.”
3
We address private dedications in subdivision plats
filed before MCL 560.253(1) became effective on January 1,
1968, in Little v Hirschman, 469 Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___
(2004), which was argued with this case and will be
released with this opinion.
2
Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the Court of
Appeals and the trial court.
Introduction
In
before
the
earliest
statehood,4
subdivided
into
in
days
of
order
discrete
this
to
areas
state,
allow
indeed,
townships5
containing,
for
even
to
be
example,
residential lots, dedicated6 streets, alleys, parks, etc.,
plat
legislation
was
enacted.
After
Michigan
became
a
state in 1837 there were numerous statutes amending and
revising the requirements for recording and changing plats
over the years.
Further, in 1873 Michigan began centrally
maintaining a file of all plats with the State Treasurer so
that
interested
individuals
could
inspect
them
and
4
The earliest statute was enacted in 1821.
The
territorial act of March 12, 1821, governing town plats,
provided that when made, acknowledged, and recorded in
accordance with the statute, they "shall be deemed a
sufficient conveyance, to vest the fee of such parcels of
land as are therein expressed, named or intended to be for
public uses, in the county in which such town lies, in
trust to and for the uses and purposes therein named,
expressed or intended, and for no other use or purpose
whatever." 1 Terr Laws, town plat act, 816-817 § 2.
5
Townships were established by Congress under
Articles of Confederation in the Ordinance of 1785.
6
the
Traditionally a dedication was understood to be “an
appropriation of land to some public use, accepted for such
use by or in behalf of the public . . . .” Clark v Grand
Rapids, 334 Mich 646, 656-657; 55 NW2d 137 (1952).
Two
types of dedications have been specifically recognized:
statutory dedication and common-law dedication.
Alton v
Meeuwenberg, 108 Mich 629; 66 NW 571 (1896).
3
ascertain the rights and limitations of a given plat.7
practice
has
continued
to
this
day
with
over
That
66,000
subdivision plats on file that may be reviewed on a website
maintained by the Department of Labor and Economic Growth.8
At
recorded
issue
in
this
in
1969
may
case
is
contain
whether
a
plat
dedications
that
only
was
to
the
public, or whether private dedications to an individual or
to individuals may also be included and be effective.
To
answer this, we must construe MCL 560.253(1), which was
enacted as part of 1967 PA 288.
determined
dedications.
that
this
statute
The Court of Appeals
does
not
allow
private
Yet, as explained below, because the statute
expressly allows private dedications, we must disagree and,
accordingly,
we
reverse
the
holding
of
the
Court
of
subdivision
in
Appeals.
Facts and Proceedings Below
In
November
1969,
developers
of
a
Oxford Township in Oakland County recorded the Tan Lake
Shores Subdivision Plat.
The plat divided the subdivision
into twenty-one lots and three outlots.
In a paragraph
7
The current such statute, MCL 560.242, requires the
State Treasurer to maintain a permanent file of plats and
requires an index that contains all pertinent information
necessary
to
facilitate
reference.
Similarly,
MCL
560.243(1) requires the Register of Deeds to maintain a
permanent file of recorded plats.
8
<http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/platmaps/sr_subs.asp>.
4
entitled “Dedication” the plat states in part that “Outlot
A is reserved for the use of the lot owners . . . .”
Plaintiffs
and
their
predecessors
in
interest
purchased lot 21 and the northerly part of adjoining outlot
A in tandem pursuant to various deeds dating back to 1967.9
When they applied for a permit to build a home on lot 21
and the part of outlot A mentioned in their deed, they
learned that the subdivision plat had dedicated outlot A
for the use of the lot owners.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to have the plat
language “[o]utlot A is reserved for the use of the lot
owners” removed, or declared null and void.10
responded
by
arguing
that
the
reservation
Defendants
of
outlot
9
A
At least one deed was dated before the filing of the
plat and at least one after the filing of the plat.
10
Plaintiffs’ complaint concluded as follows:
22. As to the subject portion of Outlot A,
the words or reservation, limitation and/or
dedication expressed in the plat dated November
28, 1969 or as otherwise stated or expressed
should therefore be ruled null and void or
otherwise inapplicable.
WHEREFORE, your
Honorable Court:
Plaintiffs
pray
that
this
A.
Enter an Order removing the above cited
restrictions/reservations
from
the
subject
portion of Outlot A owned by the Plaintiffs
and/or declaring same null and void.
B.
Afford such other legal
relief as deemed appropriate.
5
or
equitable
constituted a valid statutory dedication of the lot for the
use of the other lot owners in the subdivision pursuant to
MCL 560.253(1) of the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.101
through
560.293
(previously
known
as
the
Subdivision
Control Act).
The
trial
plaintiffs,
granted
court
revised
plaintiffs
the
the
granted
plat
summary
language
exclusive
disposition
as
right
requested,
to
the
part
for
and
of
outlot A described in their deed.11
Several of the other lot owners in the subdivision
appealed the trial court’s order.
affirmed on different grounds.12
of
law
MCL
560.253(1)
did
The Court of Appeals
It held that
not
as a matter
recognize
private
dedications.
11
The trial court’s final order revised the plat as
follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that certain language
contained in the dedication of the Plat to Tan
Lakes Subdivision [sic], Oxford Township, Oakland
County, Michigan, as recorded in Liber 129, pages
29-30, to wit:
“OUTLOT A is reserved to the use of the lot
owners”
is found to be inapplicable to the portion of
Outlot A hereinafter described and that the
owners of Lot 21 of Tan Lakes Subdivision [sic]
shall hereinafter have the exclusive right and
use of the portion of Outlot A described as
follows:
[legal description]
12
248 Mich App 59; 638 NW2d 142 (2001).
6
We
granted
defendants’
application
for
leave
to
appeal, ordering that the case be argued and submitted with
Little v Hirschman.13
Standard of Review
Whether
the
Land
Division
Act
recognizes
private
dedications is a question of law that we review de novo.
Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 62; 642 NW2d
663
(2002).
Similarly,
we
disposition motions de novo.
review
decisions
on
summary
First Pub Corp v Parfet, 468
Mich 101, 104; 658 NW2d 477 (2003).
In resolving an issue
of statutory interpretation, our primary aim is to effect
the
intent
language
of
of
the
the
Legislature.
statute
We
and
if
first
it
examine
the
clear
and
“is
unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its
plain
meaning,
and
we
enforce
the
statute
as
written.”
Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d
686 (2001).
Analysis
The Land Division Act (1967 PA 288) became effective
on
January
Subdivision
13
14
1,
1968.
Plat
was
Because
recorded
the
in
Tan
late
Lake
1969,14
Shores
it
is
468 Mich 868 (2003), see also n 3.
We note that the plat was approved by various
governmental entities at different times. For example, the
plat was approved by the Oakland County Road Commission on
7
controlled by this act.
Concerning dedications, § 253(1)
of the LDA states:
When
a
plat
is
certified,
signed,
acknowledged and recorded as prescribed in this
act, every dedication, gift or grant to the
public or any person, society or corporation
marked or noted as such on the plat shall be
deemed sufficient conveyance to vest the fee
simple of all parcels of land so marked and
noted, and shall be considered a general warranty
against the donors, their heirs and assigns to
the donees for their use for the purposes therein
expressed and no other. [MCL 560.253(1)(emphasis
added).]
As the emphasized language makes clear, this statute
allows dedications, gifts, and grants to the public, as
December 5, 1969, the Oxford Township Board on December 10,
1969, the Oakland County Plat Board on December 17, 1969,
and the final approval from the State Treasurer was made in
March of 1970.
MCL 560.291, as amended
August 14, 1969, provides:
by
1969
PA
308,
effective
Any preliminary or final plat which on
January 1, 1968, has been approved by the
municipality or county road commission may be
processed under the law in effect at the time of
approval, but not after January 1, 1970, after
which time all plats submitted for approval shall
comply with the requirements of this act.
Pursuant to this statute, the plat needed to be
approved as being consistent with the requirements of the
Land Division Act, 1967 PA 288.
But, the approval by the
Oakland
County
Plat
Board
and
the
State
Treasurer
improperly indicated the plat complied with the 1929 Plat
Act (1929 PA 172) rather than 1967 PA 288.
This
discrepancy does not appear significant, however, because
it apparently was a mere oversight and no one has argued
that this discrepancy is of any consequence.
8
well
as
dedications,
gifts,
and
grants
to
any
person,
society, or corporation when the dedication, gift, or grant
is so marked and noted in the plat.
Because a person is
always private and a society or corporation may be, the
statute
clearly
authorizes
private
dedications.15
Reinforcing the proposition that private dedications are
allowed is the fact that two other statutes in the LDA, MCL
560.202(1)16 and MCL 560.204(1),17 require that if there are
15
Although the Court of Appeals recognized that the
Legislature expanded the scope of permitted conveyances in
the
1967
revisions
to
the
Land
Division
Act,
it
inexplicably said it was construing the term “dedication”
in accordance with its meaning set forth in wellestablished case law.
Martin v Redmond, 248 Mich App 59,
68; 638 NW2d 142 (2001).
The Court of Appeals apparently
did not stop to consider that the 1967 statute might have
authorized private dedications, even if its conclusion that
the earlier case law did not allow private dedications were
correct.
We
address the Court of Appeals explication of
the prior case law in our opinion in Little v Hirschman,
issued concurrently.
16
MCL 560.202(1) provides:
The plat shall be called an assessor's plat
and given a name. It shall plainly define the
boundary of each parcel, each street, alley or
road and dedication to public or private use, as
such, shall be evidenced by the records of the
register of deeds. [Emphasis added.]
17
MCL 560.204(1) provides:
The surveyor making the plat shall survey
and lay out the boundaries of each parcel,
street, alley or road and dedication to public or
private use, according to the records of the
register of deeds and whatever other evidence
that may be available to show the intent of the
buyer and seller, in the chronological order of
their conveyance or dedication. [Emphasis added.]
9
private dedications they shall be noted on the plat.
This
of
that
course
must
mean
that
the
Legislature
there could be private dedications.
expected
Further, pursuant to
MCL 560.253(1), a private dedication is deemed a sufficient
conveyance to vest the fee simple of all land so marked and
noted.18
Given
the
express
authorization
for
private
dedications, gifts, and grants in MCL 560.253(1), and the
mention of dedications for private use in MCL 560.202(1)
and
MCL
560.204(1),
and
given
that
MCL
560.253(1)
authorizes private dedications when marked and noted as a
dedication in the plat, we conclude that the statement in
the
plat,
located
under
the
paragraph
entitled
“Dedication,” that outlot A is “reserved for the use of the
lot owners” was marked and noted as a “dedication” and thus
constitutes
a
private
simple19 to the donees.
dedication
that
conveyed
a
fee
Hence, we conclude that the private
18
As we explain in Little, a private dedication made
before 1967 PA 288 took effect conveyed an irrevocable
easement, whereas MCL 560.253(1) now indicates that a
private dedication
conveys a fee interest subject to the
explanation set forth in n 19.
19
We note that the granting of a fee simple is
qualified by the language at the end of MCL 560.253(1) that
indicates the dedication, gift, or grant is to the donees
“for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no
other.”
We take this to mean that the lot purchasers are
owners of outlot A, but that they may only use it as an
outlot and not for some other purpose.
The statute’s
reference to “for their use” is entirely consistent with
10
dedication of outlot A was drafted in conformity with, and
was expressly permitted by, the Land Division Act.
The
Court of Appeals committed error requiring reversal when it
concluded otherwise.20
the dedicatory language that outlot A is reserved “for the
use of the lot owners.”
Moreover, plaintiffs argue that the dedication in the
plat failed because it was not “accepted” before it was
withdrawn. MCL 560.255b(1) provides that land dedicated to
the public is presumed to have been accepted on behalf of
the public by the applicable municipality ten years after
the plat is first recorded.
But, the Land Division Act
makes no mention of “acceptance” with reference to private
dedications.
We believe this is the case because a land
owner “accepts,” as it were, any private dedication in a
plat when property is purchased pursuant to a deed that
references the plat.
That is, purchasers of parcels of
property conveyed with reference to a recorded plat have
the right to rely on the plat reference and are presumed to
“accept” the benefits and any liabilities that may be
associated with the private dedication.
20
Plaintiffs have argued that the dedication of outlot
A expired twenty-five years after the dedication because
deed restrictions executed in 1969, at the same time the
plat was recorded, stated in pertinent part:
17. All restrictions, conditions, covenants,
charges, easements, agreements and rights herein
contained shall continue for a period of twentyfive
years
from
date
of
recording
this
instrument.
We disagree with plaintiffs.
Nothing in the plat
itself restricts any of its dedications to a twenty-five
year period. Moreover, the deed restriction expressly uses
the
phrase “herein contained,” which means paragraph 17
applies to the restrictions found in the deed restriction
document itself and not something contained in a different
document, i.e., the plat.
11
Further, we agree with defendants that plaintiffs, who
ultimately
were
seeking
to
have
the
plat
conveyance
of
outlot A declared “null and void” were required to file
their
claim
under
MCL
560.221
et
seq.21
Allowing
this
action to proceed as one to quiet title is contrary to the
statutes, which not only outline the specific procedures22
to be followed and what must be pleaded,23 but also require
21
MCL 560.221 provides:
The circuit court may, as provided in
sections 222 to 229 vacate, correct, or revise
all or part of a recorded plat.
Accord Hall v Hanson, 255 Mich App 271, 286; 664 NW2d
796 (2003) (because the defendants sought to vacate or
otherwise alter the plats dedicating the boulevard to the
public, they should have brought their countercomplaint
pursuant to the Land Division Act). Correspondingly, if a
party merely wants to maintain the status quo, e.g., be
declared an owner or someone with use rights under a plat,
such party would not be seeking to vacate, correct, or
revise the plat and thus would not be limited to filing a
lawsuit pursuant to the LDA.
22
MCL 560.222 provides:
To vacate, correct, or revise a recorded
plat or any part of it, a complaint shall be
filed in the circuit court by the owner of a lot
in the subdivision, a person of record claiming
under the owner or the governing body of the
municipality in which the subdivision covered by
the plat is located.
23
MCL 560.223 provides:
The complaint shall set forth:
(a) The part or parts, if any, sought to be
vacated and any other correction or revision of
the plat sought by the plaintiff.
12
that an extensive group of parties be served, including
everyone owning property located within three hundred feet
of the lands described in the petition, the municipality,
the
State
road
Treasurer,
commissioners,
certain
instances,
Transportation
and
MCL 560.224a(1).
the
drain
affected
commissioner,
pubic
the
utilities,
county
and,
in
Department
of
the
directors
of
the
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Thus, because plaintiffs were attempting
to vacate, correct, or revise the plat, we find that the
trial court erred when it allowed this case to proceed as a
quiet title cause of action.24
In holding in this fashion we are reaching the same
conclusion that this Court did in Binkley v Asire, 335 Mich
89, 96-97; 55 NW2d 742 (1952), where we determined that an
action
to
vacate,
alter,
amend,
or
revise
a
plat
was
properly filed in a court of law, as opposed to a court of
(b) The plaintiff's reasons for seeking the
vacation, correction, or revision.
24
Requiring lawsuits seeking to correct, alter, or
amend a plat to be filed only pursuant to MCL 560.221
through 560.229 ensures that plats on file remain accurate.
The reason is that MCL 560.229 requires that a plaintiff
who obtains a court order to vacate, correct, or amend a
plat must obtain a new plat and have it filed with the
State Treasurer.
In this way, the plats on file remain
accurate.
See Sroka v State Treasurer, 169 Mich App 616;
426 NW2d 726 (1988).
13
equity, because such a proceeding under the plat act was an
action at law of special character.25
While agreeing with this holding of the Binkley Court,
we find a different remedy is required under the current
statutes.
The
Binkley
Court,
in
considering
a
remedy,
declined to require the parties to try the case again even
though it had not been filed under the proper statute.
The
Court concluded that the error did not "deprive appellant,
or any other party to the case, of any substantial right or
privilege." Id. at 97.
We cannot agree that such is the
case under the current statutes.
MCL 560.224a requires
certain fellow lot owners and affected utilities, as well
as numerous governmental officials, to be made parties to a
lawsuit to vacate, correct, or revise a plat.
Here several
of these necessary parties were not joined in the lawsuit
and
it
is
clear
that
they
have
participate fully in the lawsuit.
a
statutory
right
to
Thus, if plaintiffs wish
to proceed under the LDA (particularly MCL 560.221 through
560.229), they must amend their complaint on remand and add
the necessary parties.
The case may proceed as would any
other ordinary case thereafter.
25
Binkley was decided before jurisdiction over both
equitable and legal claims was vested solely in one circuit
court in 1963. See MCL 600.601; Const 1963, art 6, § 5.
14
Conclusion
The
judgment
of
the
Court
of
Appeals
is
reversed
because private dedications in plats recorded pursuant to
the Land Division Act, i.e., dated after January 1, 1968,
are recognized under Michigan law.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed because
plaintiffs, in seeking to vacate, correct, or revise the
plat, were required to file their lawsuit under the Land
Division Act. The case is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.
Clifford W. Taylor
Maura D. Corrigan
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
15
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
