In Virginia Park Sub. Assn v Hair, an unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, 4 of 26 lots in a subdivision on Walled Lake shared a common boundary with a waterfront park dedicated in the plat to “the use of lot owners only.” None of the four lots reached the lake. The other 22 lots touched neither the lake nor the park. A dispute arose among the lot owners regarding the use of the park and whether all or any of the lots had riparian rights. The trial court held that all lots owners had easement rights to use the park, but none of the lot owners had riparian rights.
The four lot owners claimed that, because their lots were separated from the water only by a dedicated park, these four lots had riparian rights. After a careful consideration of the law, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on this issue. The court of appeals also affirmed the holding that all lot owners had easement rights. However, the court of appeals remanded the case back to the trial court because the issue of the extent of the lot owners’ use of the park remained. The trial court still needed to determine whether the scope of the easement included riparian rights to all lot owners.