Dispute over property owners’ rights in docks & boat moorings; An easement as an interest in land subject to the statute of frauds; Lake Doster Lake Association (the LDLA); Lake Doster Development Corporation (the LDDC)

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 72137 in the 1/31/20 edition) and reinstated the trial court’s decision granting defendant-LDLA summary disposition. The court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ dissent that plaintiffs-back lot owners’ use and maintenance of their docks was subject to the LDLA’s regulation and oversight and was “not a permanent and irrevocable property interest.” They could not point to any “written conveyance manifesting a clear intent to create an easement granting dock rights.” Instead, they asserted a property interest was created when (1) the LDDC orally approved their “request or a predecessor’s request to install a dock and (2) the LDLA agreed, as a benefit of membership, that it would agree to allow the continuance of ‘all past permitted rights.’ Neither of these bases, whether considered separately or in tandem, satisfies the requirements for establishing a permanent interest in realty.” As to the first, assuming the LDDC meant to convey an interest in real estate when it gave oral approval, “and absent any indication of fraud, an attempted conveyance of an interest in real estate is void if it is not in writing.” Further, in the absence of observing “the formalities required for creating an express easement, only a mere license was created.” The reliance of plaintiffs and their predecessors for many years did not make any difference – “Michigan does not recognize ‘irrevocable licenses’ or ‘easements by estoppel’ stemming from a licensee’s expenditures made in reliance on representations about the duration of a license.” As to the second basis, assuming the LDLA membership application was an enforceable contract, it only stated “that the LDLA will allow the LDLA member and their successors-in-interest to continue ‘past permitted rights.’” This language, which was “conditioned on plaintiffs and all future owners abiding by the LDLA’s overall governance and control,” was consistent with the court’s determination “that the prior oral approval process created a revocable license, i.e., ‘a permission to do some act or series of acts on the land of the licensor without having any permanent interest in it.’”