Trial Lawyer’s Takeaway: no tacking is required if prescriptive easement has already vested; prescriptive easements are appurtenant; burden of proving hostility shifts to landowner “many years” after statutory period
This case involved every property law student’s favorite topic: adverse possession. More specifically, it involved easements by prescription, which are a variant of adverse possession. The basic gist of adverse possession law in Michigan is that if someone has clearly treated property as their own for a period of fifteen years, and the real landowner has never done anything about it, then that person (the adverse possessor) will have a right to the land. A similar principle applies to an easement—which is just the right to use another’s land, rather than a right to possess it. Issues arise when it comes time to transfer property that is potentially subject to an adverse possessor’s interest. This case analyzes one of those issues.
Read MoreTrial Lawyers' Bottom-line: State Boundary Commission cannot rule on validity of Act 425 agreements; municipalities may include zoning provisions in Act 425 agreement.
Two trusts and a corporation, TeriDee LLC, owned land in Clam Lake Township that was zoned for forest-recreational use. The landowners wanted to develop the land for commercial use instead. To that end, the landowners filed an annexation petition to transfer the land to Cadillac. Around the same time, Clam Lake and Haring Charter Township entered into an Act 425 agreement to transfer the land to Haring.
When the landowners’ annexation petition reached the State Boundary Commission, the Commission’s statutory duty was to determine whether an Act 425 Agreement was “in effect.” The Commission, in carrying out this duty, determined it had the authority to declare the Act 425 Agreement “invalid” (using a number of statutory criteria) as opposed to just determining whether the agreement was “in effect.”
Read More