Quiet title action; Whether a state court has subject-matter jurisdiction to decide an easement dispute in favor of a non-Native American on land owned by a non-Native American when the land is located on a Native American reservation; Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov’t; State Treasurer v. Duty (Unpub.); Subject-matter jurisdiction; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13; MCL 600.605; Campbell v. St. John Hosp.; Okrie v. Michigan; Prime Time Int’l Distrib., Inc. v. Department of Treasury; “Indian country”; 18 USC § 1151; Seymour v. Superintendent of WA State Penitentiary; McGirt v. Oklahoma; United States v. Webb; The “infringement test”; Williams v. Lee; Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D NM); McClanahan v. State Tax Comm’n of AZ; C’Hair v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial Dist. (WY); Exception to the preclusion of tribal court jurisdiction over non-Native Americans on Native American land; Montana v. United States; Evans v. Shoshone-Bannock Land Use Policy Comm’n (9th Cir.); Strate v. A-1 Contractors; Gustafson v. Poitra (ND); Cordova v. Holwegner (WA App.); Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley; Nevada v. Hicks; Principle that once tribal land is converted into fee simple, the tribe loses plenary jurisdiction over it; Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle; Criminal jurisdiction; People v. Collins; United States v. Antelope; Alexander v. Cook (NM)

Holding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the parties’ easement dispute, the court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant and remanded. Plaintiffs sought a prescriptive easement over a part of defendant’s land. Neither party is of Native American descent, but the land is located on a Native American reservation and was previously owned by a Native American. It is not held in trust for a tribe or any tribal member. The trial court found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court began by noting that neither party cited “any federal law that would be incompatible with a state court’s exercise of jurisdiction over an easement dispute between” non-Native Americans on the reservation. As such, it focused on “the second Williams test—whether exercise of state authority over this easement dispute would infringe on the tribal interest in self-government.” It found that it would not. The court concluded that exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court “would have no significant, catastrophic-type consequences to the tribe and its power to control and govern its members and affairs. . . . Frankly, there would be little interference, if any, with tribal self-government as a result of the circuit court ruling. The tribe lost control of the disputed land (perhaps not all activity on that land, but the land itself) when it was transferred by” Native Americans to non-Native Americans, and now that it is non-Native American “fee land, the presumption is against tribal jurisdiction, and resolution of the easement dispute between” non-Native Americans on non-Native American fee lands “will have no meaningful impact on the tribe’s authority over the reservation and its members.”