Title: ROBERT MARTIN V JOHN R REDMOND
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 120932
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 2004

Michigan Supreme Court  
Lansing, Michigan 48909  
Chief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
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 the earliest days of this state, indeed, even 
before statehood,4 in order to allow townships5 to be 
subdivided into discrete areas containing, for 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 the
Articles of Confederation in the Ordinance of 1785. 
6 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  That 
practice has continued to this day with over 66,000 
subdivision plats on file that may be reviewed on a website 
maintained by the Department of Labor and Economic Growth.8 
At issue in this case is whether a plat that was 
recorded in 1969 may contain dedications only 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.  The Court of Appeals 
determined that this statute does not allow private 
dedications. 
Yet, as explained below, because the statute 
expressly allows private dedications, we must disagree and, 
accordingly, we reverse the holding of the Court of 
Appeals. 
Facts and Proceedings Below 
In November 1969, developers of a subdivision in 
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 .
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
 Defendants 
responded by arguing that the reservation of outlot A 
9 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 Plaintiffs pray that this
Honorable Court: 
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 or equitable
relief as deemed appropriate. 
5 
 
   
                                                 
 
 
 
  
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 court granted summary disposition for 
plaintiffs, revised the plat language as requested, and 
granted plaintiffs the exclusive right to the part of 
outlot A described in their deed.11 
Several of the other lot owners in the subdivision 
appealed the trial court’s order. 
The Court of Appeals 
affirmed on different grounds.12  It held that as a matter 
of 
law 
MCL 
560.253(1) 
did 
not 
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 
13
Little v Hirschman.
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 review decisions on summary 
disposition motions de novo. 
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 of the Legislature. 
We first examine the 
language 
of 
the 
statute 
and 
if 
it 
“is 
clear 
and 
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 1, 1968. 
Because the Tan Lake Shores 
Subdivision Plat was recorded in late 1969,14 it is 
13 468 Mich 868 (2003), see also n 3. 
14 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 by 1969 PA 308, effective
August 14, 1969, provides: 
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 
well­
established 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 course must mean that the Legislature expected that 
there could be private dedications. 
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 dedication that conveyed a fee 
simple19 to the donees. 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 twenty­
five 
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 Treasurer, the drain commissioner, the county 
road commissioners, affected pubic utilities, and, in 
certain instances, the directors of the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources. 
MCL 560.224a(1). 
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 a statutory right to 
participate fully in the lawsuit. 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