Background
The dispute concerns a 0.16-mile section of Old Pinckney Road in Marion Township, about 100 feet of which crosses property owned by JAC Enterprises. The City of Howell alleged that the Livingston County Road Commission transferred jurisdiction over the section to the city in 2006. After objecting to traffic on the road, JAC and its manager, Aaren Currie, claimed the section had been abandoned and placed a chain across it.
Howell sued for declaratory relief, public nuisance, and trespass. Defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that MCL 224.18 caused jurisdiction to revert to Marion Township rather than Howell. The circuit court agreed with defendants on that issue, dismissing Howell’s declaratory-judgment count and entering judgment for defendants, while separately dismissing defendants’ purported independent claim for injunctive relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Highways Act, not MCL 224.18, governs a transfer from a county road commission to a city. Because the Transfer Act contains no requirement that the transferred road lie within the receiving city’s boundaries, MCL 224.18’s geographic limitation did not bar the alleged transfer to Howell.
The court therefore held that Howell was entitled to summary disposition on defendants’ counterclaim insofar as it asserted that MCL 224.18 prevented the city from acquiring jurisdiction. It also held that Howell had stated a viable declaratory-judgment claim by alleging a written transfer agreement approved through resolutions and consent of both highway authorities. The court reversed the challenged rulings and remanded, leaving the circuit court free to consider defendants’ remaining factual arguments about whether the 2006 transfer satisfied the Transfer Act.
Key Takeaways
- The Transfer Act governs a highway-jurisdiction transfer from a county road commission to a city, while MCL 224.18 governs transfers from a county to a township.
- A court may not import MCL 224.18’s municipal-boundary restriction into the Transfer Act, whose text contains no comparable geographic limitation.
- The decision preserves Howell’s claim that it acquired jurisdiction in 2006 but does not finally resolve every factual challenge to the transfer’s statutory validity.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Michigan counties and county road commissions may transfer highway jurisdiction to a city under the Transfer Act even when the road segment lies outside that city’s corporate limits. That distinction may be important where roads cross or wind through multiple municipalities.
The opinion also illustrates the limited reach of a pleadings-stage ruling: Howell defeated a counterclaim based on the wrong statute and revived its own jurisdictional claim, but factual disputes concerning compliance with the Transfer Act may still be litigated on remand.