Background
The consolidated appeals concerned a strip of land between the Palermo property and a public right of way leading to Lake Bellaire. In 2007, the Township of Forest Home and the Palermos settled an earlier quiet-title action through a consent judgment establishing that the portion of Steiner Road from the eastern edge of the Palermo garage to the lake would be a township road. The judgment also required relocation of the Palermos’ fence and restricted certain public activities near their property.
After trees and private-property signs were placed within the disputed strip in 2022, the Township sought enforcement of the consent judgment. The circuit court granted summary disposition to the Township and ordered Susan Palermo to remove the trees and restore the property. Brandon Bertrang, acting for Susan Palermo as trustee of the Palermo Trust, later filed a separate quiet-title action alleging that the Township had abandoned the property. The circuit court also granted summary disposition to the Township in that case.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings. It held that the consent judgment gave the Township jurisdiction over Steiner Road from the eastern edge of the Palermo garage to Lake Bellaire. Because Steiner Road was a public highway centered on a section line, MCL 221.20 supplied a width of 66 feet—33 feet on each side of that line—placing the disputed property within the Township’s jurisdiction.
The court further held that the Township could require removal and transplantation of trees planted in the public right of way because they interfered with its authority to control and maintain public access to the lake. It also rejected the abandonment claim because abandonment required both an intent to relinquish the property and acts carrying out that intent. The Township’s installation of signs and barriers, maintenance of the site, and continued regulation of public access contradicted abandonment, and the appellants produced no evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A consent judgment governing a public road is enforced according to its unambiguous terms, with applicable statutes supplying legal dimensions not expressly stated.
- A municipality responsible for a public right of way may require removal of trees that interfere with its ability to maintain the property and preserve public access.
- Abandonment of a public roadway requires proof of both intent to relinquish it and external acts implementing that intent; nonuse alone is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that adjoining landowners cannot establish control over a public right of way merely because a settlement does not expressly state the road’s width. Statutory road dimensions and the parties’ agreed allocation of jurisdiction may resolve that issue.
It also underscores the demanding proof required to establish governmental abandonment of a public roadway. Evidence of continued maintenance, improvements, regulation, or public use can defeat an abandonment claim at summary disposition.