In Wamsley v Martin, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, Case Number 337943 (Decided July 17, 2018) the parties disputed the ownership of 7.5 feet of bank along the Indian River.
The Wamsley family has owned their lot since 1963 and the Martin’s purchased their property in 2003. The parties’ dispute arose in 2012 when the Martin’s erected a seasonal boat hoist in the disputed area. Thereafter, the parties’ relationship deteriorated and Wamsley filed suit against the Martins seeking to quiet title to the disputed piece of land, and to enforce a Cheboygan County Zoning Ordinance that requires a 10 foot setback for structures. Both parties presented expert testimony in support of their version of the proper property boundary. Following a bench trial, the Cheboygan County Circuit Court found that the boat hoist was not a structure under the Cheboygan Zoning Ordinance, and agreed with Martin’s expert finding the Martins as the owners of the property at issue. Wamsley appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment while citing Michigan’s long standing reliance on natural landmarks over platted distances. Specifically stating: “[w]hen there is a conflict between a distance and a natural boundary, such as a body of water, the location of the boundary controls, and the boundary exists where the water actually lies.” Jonkers v Summit Twp, 278 Mich App 263, 265; 747 NW2d 901 (2008). The Court added that given the state of the law, they found no error in the Circuit Court’s ruling in agreement with the Martin’s expert.
Read more about our expertise in real property law.
Real Property LawAbout the Author
