Opinion ID: 1794109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effective Withdrawal

Text: The remaining critical issue in this appeal is by what acts a private property owner may manifest withdrawal of an offer to dedicate the property to public use. Again, the answer will depend on the specific circumstances in each case. [6] Here, none of the plaintiffs or their predecessors recorded a formal notice of withdrawal. They argue that their private use of the platted roads acted as an informal withdrawal. The rule was stated in Field v. Village of Manchester, 32 Mich. 279, 281 (1875): It is very evident that something more than a mere offer of dedication by platting is necessary in order to make it a public highway. There must be an acceptance on the part of the public. When a person in platting property maps out streets thereon, the authorities may accept them in whole or in part. An acceptance of a part is no acceptance of the whole. They may take and use what the public necessities, in their opinion, require, and they are not bound thereby to assume the burdens and responsibilities of opening, grading and keeping in repair the other portions. In case they do not, however, within a reasonable time accept of the streets thus offered to be dedicated, the owners of the lands fronting thereon, may again take possession of the property, and treat it as though, in all respects, no offer of dedication had ever been made. Offers are deemed withdrawn when the proprietors use the property in a way that is inconsistent with public ownership. Lee, 14 Mich. at 18. What qualifies as inconsistent use will depend on the circumstances of each case, and acquiescence by one of the parties to the other party's use of the property will often be pivotal. Tillman, 12 Mich. at 404 (public authorities allowed the property owner to keep an alley closed and to build improvements). We observe that examples of inconsistent use have included erected buildings, fenced-in enclosures, and planted trees. See Vivian, 433 Mich. at 520-521, 446 N.W.2d 161, Field, 32 Mich. at 280, Miller, 31 Mich. 447, and Lee, 14 Mich. at 17. We turn now to the instant cases.