Background
The dispute concerned a 0.16-mile section of Old Pinckney Road in Marion Township, approximately 100 feet of which crossed property owned by JAC Enterprises, LLC. The City of Howell alleged that the Livingston County Road Commission transferred jurisdiction over the section to the city in 2006 through resolutions and a written agreement. After JAC and its manager, Aaren Currie, asserted that the section had been abandoned and belonged to them, they placed a chain across the road to block traffic.
The city sued for declaratory relief, public nuisance, and trespass. Defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that MCL 224.18 transferred jurisdiction to Marion Township rather than Howell because the road section lay outside the city’s boundaries. The circuit court agreed with defendants on the jurisdictional issue, granting them summary disposition on the city’s declaratory-judgment claim, while dismissing defendants’ separate count for injunctive relief because an injunction is a remedy rather than an independent cause of action. The city obtained leave to take an interlocutory appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Highways Act, not MCL 224.18, governed the alleged 2006 transfer because the transfer was from a county road commission to a city. The Transfer Act supersedes MCL 224.18 for such transfers and does not require the transferred road to lie within the receiving city’s municipal boundaries. The court declined to import into the Transfer Act the geographic limitation found in MCL 224.18.
The court therefore held that the city was entitled to summary disposition on the defendants’ counterclaim, which depended on MCL 224.18. It also held that the circuit court erred by granting defendants summary disposition on the city’s declaratory-judgment claim because the city alleged facts satisfying the Transfer Act’s requirements, including consent by both highway authorities through resolutions and a written agreement. The court reversed those rulings and remanded, leaving the circuit court free to consider defendants’ remaining factual arguments about compliance with the Transfer Act.
Key Takeaways
- The Transfer Act governs a transfer of road jurisdiction from a county road commission to a city, while MCL 224.18 governs transfers from a county to a township.
- The Transfer Act contains no requirement that the transferred road be located within the receiving city’s corporate boundaries.
- The decision permits Howell’s declaratory-judgment claim to proceed but does not finally establish that the 2006 transfer satisfied every statutory requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Michigan courts may not import the territorial restriction in MCL 224.18 into transfers governed by the Transfer Act. A city may therefore acquire jurisdiction from a county road commission over a road segment outside its boundaries if the Transfer Act’s consent, resolution, and written-agreement requirements are met.
The ruling is also procedurally significant: it rejects defendants’ statutory theory and restores the city’s claim, but leaves unresolved any fact-dependent challenges to whether the particular transfer was validly completed.