Opinion ID: 828424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MARTIN v BELDEAN

Text: The majority errs in its understanding of Martin v Beldean, both factually and legally. As already discussed, Martin held that a plaintiff “seeking to vacate, correct, or revise a dedication in a recorded plat” must file a lawsuit pursuant to the LDA. Martin, 469 Mich at 542-543. This precedent is now made the subject of hypertechnical distinctions that have no grounding in either the LDA or in Martin itself. Given the importance of Martin to this case, the majority’s analysis warrants further response. The majority states that this dissent “incorrectly concludes that Martin requires plaintiffs in the instant case to file under the LDA,” because the Martin plaintiffs had a preexisting substantive property right—reflected in the plat and documented by a deed—in the plat whose language they sought to have declared void. Thus, the issue in Martin concerned whether the plat’s language accurately reflected the parties’ preexisting rights as outlined in the plat itself. Furthermore, the relief sought by the Martin plaintiffs’ quiet title action was to conform the plat at issue to those preexisting property rights. [Ante at 14.] The majority’s points are straightforward, but its asserted distinctions fail. First, the Martin plaintiffs did not have a “preexisting substantive property right . . . reflected in the plat,” because the plat reflected only that the disputed property, outlot A, was “‘reserved for the use of the lot owners.’” Martin, 469 Mich at 545. Thus, contrary to the majority’s assertion, the plat granted absolutely no rights to the plaintiffs in outlot A, but instead, just as the plat in this case, granted use rights to someone other than the plaintiffs.19 In Martin, the plat granted use rights to the other 21 lot owners; in this case, 19 In fact, it was not until the plaintiffs applied for a permit to build on outlot A that they learned that it had been dedicated for the use of the other lot owners. Martin, 469 Mich at 544-545. 28 the plat granted use rights to assorted other persons, including the township. Thus, the Martin plaintiffs had no preexisting substantive property right reflected in the plat. Second, just as in Martin, plaintiffs here “had a preexisting substantive property right”-- the right of title which passed upon the expiration of the statutory period of limitation-- “in the plat whose language they sought to have declared void.” The majority might better explain why the Martin plaintiffs, whose claimed title to the disputed property was established by a deed, were required to bring their quiet-title action pursuant to the LDA while plaintiffs in this case, whose title to the disputed streets was established by adverse possession, are not.20 Any putative distinction based on the method of acquiring title lacks statutory support and suggests, without any apparent basis in the law, that title acquired by deed constitutes a legally superior method of acquiring title for purposes of an LDA action. In any event, plaintiffs here did acquire title to the disputed streets by deed. The trial court found that North and East Streets were included in a deed to General William G. Beach (plaintiffs’ predecessor) in 1853, and that Cross Street was included in a deed to the Beach family in 1897. Accordingly, even under the 20 In this regard, the majority states that “plaintiffs had no recognized, recorded, preexisting property rights in the disputed land,” ante at 14, but I fail to understand the relevance of this distinction for two reasons. First, the majority cites no authority for the suggestion that a plaintiff must have some type of “recognized” and “recorded,” “preexisting” property right in the disputed land. MCL 560.222 contains no such requirement. Second, plaintiffs do have a “recognized” property right. As even the majority acknowledges, expiration of the period of limitations vests title in the party claiming adverse possession, Gardner, 257 Mich at 176, and, further, plaintiffs also have deeds that reflect their property rights in the disputed streets. Thus, plaintiffs do have a “recognized recorded preexisting property right[] in the disputed land,” as now required by the majority for the LDA to be applicable. 29 majority’s interpretation of Martin, because plaintiffs did have a “preexisting substantive property right . . . in the plat whose language they sought to have declared void,” they are required to file their action pursuant to the LDA. Third, the majority repeatedly emphasizes that the Martin plaintiffs’ deed “preexisted” the filing of the plat. This purported distinction is again without merit for two reasons: (1) MCL 560.222 contains no requirement that only claims based on property rights that “predated” or “preexisted” the filing of a plat must be brought under the LDA and (2) Martin itself did not rely on this distinction, or even allude to it, in holding that the plaintiffs’ action had to be filed under the LDA. Presumably, this is because the Martin plaintiffs and their predecessors received a deed to outlot A after the subdivision was platted, not before, as asserted by the majority. See Martin v Redmond, 248 Mich App 59, 61; 638 NW2d 142 (2001). Fourth, the majority states that because the plaintiffs had a preexisting property right reflected in the plat whose language they sought to have declared void, the issue in Martin concerned “whether the plat’s language accurately reflected the parties’ preexisting rights as outlined in the plat itself,” ante at 14. Again, I disagree. The Martin plaintiffs did not claim that the plat’s dedication of outlot A was in error21-- that is, they did not claim that the plat inaccurately dedicated outlot A for the use of all owners in the subdivision because that would have been inconsistent with their deed. Instead, the plaintiffs in Martin only claimed that the dedication had expired pursuant to the terms of 21 Nor could they have, as the owner at the time of the plat’s dedication, specifically signed the dedications and restrictions that depicted outlot A as among those reserved for the use of all lot owners. 30 the plat itself, which limited all restrictions, conditions, covenants, and rights to 25 years; by laches or estoppel, as the trial court had held; or because the dedication was invalid, as the Court of Appeals had held. See Martin, 248 Mich App at 62-63. This Court then addressed only the following issues: (1) the Court of Appeals’ holding that a private dedication in a recorded plat is invalid under Michigan law, and (2) whether the plaintiffs, who ultimately sought to have the plat conveyance of outlot A declared “null and void,” were required to file their claim under the LDA. Martin, 469 Mich at 542543. From all of this, it seems clear that the issue in Martin was not, as the majority claims, whether the plat language “accurately” reflected the “parties preexisting rights as outlined in the plat itself,” but only whether the dedication was valid in the first place and, if it was, whether plaintiffs could alter that dedication outside the confines of the LDA. Nothing in Martin concerned the “accuracy” or “scope” of existing rights under a recorded plat, and thus the majority’s purported distinctions are inapt. Fifth, the majority states that “the relief sought by the Martin plaintiffs’ quiet title action was to conform the plat at issue to those preexisting property rights.” Ante at 14 (emphasis added). I fail to see how the Martin plaintiffs, who filed suit to declare their interest obtained by deed superior to the interests of those who claimed an interest in the property as a result of the plat’s dedication language, sought to “conform the plat at issue,” but plaintiffs here did not. Did not both sets of plaintiffs file suit to quiet title to establish their respective preexisting titles as superior to those who claimed an interest in the property stemming from the plat’s dedication language? Did not both sets of plaintiffs file suit to declare “null and void” that very dedication language? Yet 31 according to the majority, only the Martin plaintiffs sought to “conform” the plat to their preexisting property rights. The distinctions are invisible. Sixth, under the majority’s holding, if a party is only required to file a cause of action pursuant to the LDA “[i]f [his] interest in land is traceable to the plat or the platting process,” ante at 18, then it must follow that Martin, a recent and unanimous decision of this Court, was wrongly decided. As already noted, the Martin plaintiffs’ interest in the platted property arose from a deed conveyed after the property was platted. Their interest was neither “traceable to the plat” nor to “the platting process.” Consequently, under the majority’s holding, our decision in Martin, requiring the plaintiffs’ quiet-title action to proceed under the LDA, was in error because the LDA could not have provided the necessary relief. Yet the majority does not overrule Martin. This leads to the second practical question arising from the majority’s opinion, in addition to how plats are to remain as accurate depictions of the realities of property boundaries in Michigan: If the majority cannot reconcile its holding in this case with the Court’s holding in Martin, how are the bench and bar to comprehend the nuances of difference apparently recognizable to the majority that justify the disparate treatment of these cases? The majority leaves in place alternative, and incompatible, formulations of the law, each of which will be invoked as convenient by different plaintiffs, defendants, and judges. In the final analysis, the majority, in attempting to justify its holding that plaintiffs are not required to file their claims under the LDA, deeply misunderstands Martin, both factually and legally. The Martin plaintiffs had neither a “preexisting substantive property right . . . reflected in the plat” nor a deed that “preexisted” the filing of the plat, 32 and their case did not concern the “accuracy” or “scope” of the plat at issue. In addition, the Martin plaintiffs’ interest in the land was not “traceable to the plat or the platting process,” as now required by the majority in order for the LDA to apply. What the Martin plaintiffs did have was a deed that reflected their interest in the property, and they did seek to “conform the plat at issue” to that deed, but, as discussed, those are similarities rather than differences. Thus, just as in Martin, “plaintiffs, in seeking to vacate, correct, or revise the plat, [are] required to file their lawsuit under the Land Division Act.” Martin, 469 Mich at 552.22