Michigan Easements, Landlocked Property and Eminent Domain (2026)

In Michigan, a prescriptive easement takes 15 years of use that is open, notorious, adverse and continuous. The Michigan Court of Appeals measures that period by the 15-year recovery-of-land limitation in MCL 600.5801(4), and MCL 600.5821(2)(c) bars prescriptive easement claims against a municipal corporation, political subdivision or county road commission in actions over land. On the eminent domain side, a 2006 amendment to article X, section 2 of the Michigan Constitution excludes from "public use" any taking for transfer to a private entity for economic development or to enhance tax revenues, and it guarantees at least 125% of fair market value when an individual's principal residence is taken (MCL 213.23(5) applies that floor where the home itself is taken or the remaining lot falls below a local zoning minimum lot size).

This page covers both halves of Michigan law: easements between private landowners first, then the government's power to take private property. For other states, see our guide to easement laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-19. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Michigan statutes, constitutional provisions and appellate decisions on private easements (the Revised Judicature Act limitation sections, the statute of frauds, the recording act and the Marketable Record Title Act) and on the condemnation of private property (Michigan Constitution article X, section 2; MCL 213.23; the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, MCL 213.51 to 213.75; relocation payments). It does not cover adverse possession of title (see Michigan squatters' rights), HOA covenants, zoning or regulatory takings, federal condemnation (see eminent domain laws by state), or township, city and county ordinances.

How Easements Are Created in Michigan

An express easement is created in writing. Michigan's statute of frauds, MCL 566.106, provides that no "estate or interest in lands, other than leases for a term not exceeding 1 year," may be "created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by a deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized by writing."

Recording matters too. Under MCL 565.29, a conveyance of real estate that is not recorded "shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, of the same real estate or any portion thereof, whose conveyance shall be first duly recorded." For finding recorded documents, see our guide to Michigan property records.

Once an easement exists, its terms limit its use. In Blackhawk Development Corp. v. Village of Dexter, 473 Mich. 33 (2005), the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that "[t]he use of an easement must be confined strictly to the purposes for which it was granted or reserved," and that an easement holder cannot "make improvements to the servient estate if such improvements are unnecessary for the effective use of the easement or they unreasonably burden the servient tenement."

Two special statutes deal with particular easements:

• Conservation easements. MCL 324.2140(a) defines a conservation easement as "an interest in land that provides limitation on the use of land or a body of water or requires or prohibits certain acts on or with respect to the land or body of water," appropriate to keeping the land "predominantly in its natural, scenic, or open condition, or in an agricultural, farming, open space, or forest use, or similar use or condition."
• Broadband on electric cooperative easements. MCL 600.2979 deals with "new or expanded broadband fiber infrastructure used, at least partially, for electric service purposes" installed on an existing easement held by a Michigan electric cooperative. The cooperative is liable only if the owner shows the facility is outside the easement's bounds, that its purpose and use are expressly prohibited by the easement's terms, or that it "unreasonably or materially increases the burden on the land." Damages are measured by the "actual diminution of value of the property subject to the easement and directly related to the installation of the additional facility" and "must not exceed $3.00 per linear foot" (MCL 600.2979(3)).

Prescriptive Easements in Michigan

A prescriptive easement is a right of use gained by long use rather than by a deed. The Michigan Court of Appeals has stated the rule this way: "An easement by prescription results from use of another's property that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years" (Plymouth Canton Community Crier, Inc. v. Prose, 242 Mich. App. 676 (2000)). The court repeated that rule in Mulcahy v. Verhines, 276 Mich. App. 693 (2007), citing MCL 600.5801(4).

The 15 years come from case law borrowing a limitation period. No Michigan statute names a prescriptive easement period; MCL 600.5801 bars actions "for the recovery or possession of any lands" not brought within its periods, and subsection (4) provides: "In all other cases under this section, the period of limitation is 15 years." For more on that section and other filing deadlines, see the Michigan statute of limitations guide.

Three further points come from the same two opinions:

• Permission defeats the claim. "Mere permissive use of another's property, however, will not create a prescriptive easement" (Crier).
• Exclusive use is not required. The Crier court wrote that "exclusive use, in the sense of use by only one individual or entity, of another's land is not required to establish a prescriptive easement."
• The claimant carries the burden. In Mulcahy, the court stated, citing Crier, that "the party claiming a prescriptive easement" must "show by satisfactory proof that the use of the defendant's property was of such a character and continued for such a length of time that it ripened into a prescriptive easement."

Public land is protected. MCL 600.5821(2) provides that in an action "involving the recovery or the possession of land, including a public highway, street, alley, easement, or other public ground, a municipal corporation, political subdivision of this state, or county road commission is not subject to" the limitation periods, laches, or "a claim for adverse possession, acquiescence for the statutory period, or a prescriptive easement." Under MCL 600.5821(1), "An action for the recovery of any land to which this state is a party is not subject to the periods of limitations, or laches." The subsection adds that a person who could have claimed title by adverse possession for more than 15 years "is entitled to seek any other equitable relief in an action to determine title to the land."

A prescriptive easement gives a right of use, not ownership. Claims to own the land itself by adverse possession also run under MCL 600.5801 and are covered in our guide to Michigan squatters' rights and adverse possession.

How to Stop a Prescriptive Easement in Michigan

Michigan's land limitation sections (MCL 600.5801 and 600.5821) and its Marketable Record Title Act (MCL 565.101 to 565.106) contain no posted-sign or recorded-notice procedure for blocking a prescriptive easement. The rule that matters comes from case law: because "mere permissive use of another's property" will not create a prescriptive easement (Crier), use that the owner has permitted does not ripen into one.

Landlocked Property and Easements by Necessity in Michigan

The Michigan Compiled Laws still print a statutory procedure for opening a private road across another's land, the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary Highways Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.), under which the damages and the expenses of the proceedings "shall be paid to the township supervisor by the person applying for the road" (MCL 229.5). However, the Michigan Supreme Court struck it down in Tolksdorf v. Griffith, 464 Mich. 1 (decided May 15, 2001): "We hold that it does because the act authorizes a taking and the taking primarily benefits a private rather than a public purpose. For that reason, we strike down the act as unconstitutional."

Michigan case law recognizes the common-law easement by necessity. In Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 303 Mich. App. 28 (2013), the Court of Appeals, quoting earlier decisions, explained that an easement by necessity "may be implied by law where an owner of land splits his property so that one of the resulting parcels is landlocked except for access across the other parcel." The court held "that strict necessity is required to establish an easement by necessity." It also quoted the Michigan Supreme Court's rule in Waubun Beach Ass'n v. Wilson, 274 Mich. 598 (1936), that such a way is temporary: "A right of way of necessity is not a perpetual right. It ceases to exist when the necessity for its continuance ceases." Convenience does not keep it alive: "the fact that a former way of necessity continues to be the most convenient way will not prevent its extinguishment when it ceases to be absolutely necessary."

Murray Trust also described a related implied easement, one implied from a use that already existed when land was divided. For that easement, "three things must be shown: (1) that during the unity of title an apparently permanent and obvious servitude was imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another, (2) continuity, and (3) that the easement is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the property it benefits."

How an Easement Ends in Michigan

Michigan sources address four ways an easement can end or lose protection:

• Written release. Because MCL 566.106 requires a signed writing to "surrender" an interest in land (unless by act or operation of law), an easement holder who gives up an easement does so in a signed deed or other writing. Our Michigan quitclaim deed guide covers deed requirements and recording.
• End of necessity. An easement by necessity "ceases to exist when the necessity for its continuance ceases" (Waubun Beach Ass'n v. Wilson, 274 Mich. 598 (1936), quoted in Murray Trust).
• Abandonment. The Court of Appeals has held that "[t]o prove abandonment, both an intent to relinquish the property and external acts putting that intention into effect must be shown," and that "[n]onuse, by itself, is insufficient to show abandonment" (Ludington & Northern Railway v. Epworth Assembly, 188 Mich. App. 25 (1991)).
• Marketable Record Title Act. MCL 565.101 recognizes marketable title in a person with an "unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for 20 years for mineral interests and 40 years for other interests," and older interests can be cut off unless preserved by a recorded notice. Under MCL 565.103(1), as amended by 2025 PA 13, an interest may be preserved by recording a notice of claim "not later than 2 years after the effective date of the amendatory act that added section 5a" (that act took effect September 29, 2025) or within the 40-year period (20 years for mineral interests); an interest that "became void and of no effect under this subsection before March 29, 2019" is not preserved by recording a notice.

The act protects many easements. MCL 565.104(1) says the act must not be applied to "(c) Bar or extinguish an easement or interest in the nature of an easement, the existence of which is clearly observable," or to bar a recorded easement "due to a failure to record the notice required under this act, if the easement, observable or not, is for" listed purposes, including "a pipe, driveway, trailway, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, drain, track, substation, pole, tower, or electric generation facility."

Generic deed language does not preserve an easement under the act. Under MCL 565.105a(2), added by 2025 PA 13 (effective September 29, 2025), a statement in an instrument recorded after March 28, 2019 that the interest is conveyed "subject to easements and restrictions of record" or similar language, "without reference to any liber and page or other county-assigned unique identifying number, is not effective to create, preserve, or continue any recorded easements or restrictions of record for purposes of section 2 or 3."

Eminent Domain in Michigan

Michigan's takings clause is article X, section 2 of the state constitution. It begins: "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law." It also provides that "Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record." The section speaks of property "taken"; it has no "or damaged" wording, though MCL 213.70(2) requires a special effect of a project that "standing alone, would constitute a taking" to be considered in setting compensation. For federal condemnation and other states, see our guide to eminent domain laws by state.

Can Michigan Take Property for a Private Developer?

Not for economic development. In County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled its Poletown decision, writing that "the Poletown analysis provides no legitimate support for the condemnations proposed in this case and, for the reasons stated above, is overruled." The court described three contexts in which a transfer of condemned property to a private entity can be appropriate: "public necessity of the extreme sort," property that "remains subject to public oversight after transfer," and property "selected because of 'facts of independent public significance.'"

Voters then amended article X, section 2 (approved November 7, 2006, effective December 23, 2006). The amendment provides:

"Public use" does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.

The amendment also puts the burden of proof on the condemnor: "the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of a private property is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves a taking for the eradication of blight, in which case the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking of that property is for a public use."

MCL 213.23 implements the amendment. Subsection (3) says public use "does not include the taking of private property for the purpose of transfer to a private entity for either general economic development or the enhancement of tax revenue." Subsection (2) provides that a taking "by a public corporation or a state agency for transfer to a private entity is not a public use unless the proposed use of the property is invested with public attributes sufficient to fairly deem the entity's activity governmental" by one or more of three tests:

• (a) "A public necessity of the extreme sort exists that requires collective action to acquire property for instrumentalities of commerce, including a public utility or a state or federally regulated common carrier, whose very existence depends on the use of property that can be assembled only through the coordination that central government alone is capable of achieving."
• (b) "The property or use of the property will remain subject to public oversight and accountability after the transfer of the property and will be devoted to the use of the public, independent from the will of the private entity to which the property is transferred."
• (c) "The property is selected on facts of independent public significance or concern, including blight, rather than the private interests of the entity to which the property is eventually transferred."

Subsection (6) adds that an allowed taking "does not include a taking for a public use that is a pretext to confer a private benefit on a known or unknown private entity."

At the federal level, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that takings under a development plan serving a public purpose satisfied the Fifth Amendment's public-use requirement, and added that "nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." In a Michigan tax-foreclosure case, Pung v. Isabella County, 609 U.S. 30 (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the proper baseline under the Takings Clause is the price obtained in a tax sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of our country's history of tax sales." The national eminent domain guide covers the federal layer in more detail.

Who Can Use Eminent Domain in Michigan

The power to condemn comes from other statutes. The Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA) "provides standards for the acquisition of property by an agency, the conduct of condemnation actions, and the determination of just compensation," but it "does not confer the power of eminent domain, and does not prescribe or restrict the purposes for which or the persons by whom that power may be exercised" (MCL 213.52(1)).

The UCPA applies to private condemnors as well as public ones. MCL 213.56(3) provides: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, with respect to an acquisition by a private agency, the court at the hearing shall determine the public necessity of the acquisition of the particular parcel." A permanent or temporary certificate from the Michigan Public Service Commission "or by a federal agency authorized by federal law to make determinations of public convenience and necessity as to condemnation constitutes a prima facie case that the project in furtherance of which the particular parcel would be acquired is required by the public convenience and necessity." A certificate granted by the commission under the electric transmission line certification act "is binding on the court" (MCL 213.56(3)).

Michigan statutes also grant condemnation power directly to pipeline companies. MCL 483.2 gives a person described in MCL 483.1 "the right to condemn property by eminent domain" for rights-of-way to transport crude oil, petroleum or carbon dioxide, with proceedings "conducted as provided in the uniform condemnation procedures act." MCL 483.102 grants condemnation for natural gas pipe lines, but only for lines "used solely and exclusively for the transmission, transportation and distribution of natural gas within the state of Michigan."

Offers for crude oil, petroleum or carbon dioxide pipeline easements on farmland carry disclosure rules (MCL 483.2a(1) limits "pipeline" in that section to those lines). Under MCL 483.2a(3), an offer to a landowner for a pipeline easement "on agricultural property" must include listed information, including "(g) That the landowner has rights under the uniform condemnation procedures act, 1980 PA 87, MCL 213.51 to 213.75, and a copy of that act."

The Condemnation Process and Deadlines

Written offer first. "Before initiating negotiations for the purchase of property, the agency shall establish an amount that it believes to be just compensation for the property and promptly shall submit to the owner a good faith written offer to acquire the property for the full amount so established," and the amount "shall not be less than the agency's appraisal of just compensation for the property" (MCL 213.55(1)). The agency must give the owner and the owner's attorney "an opportunity to review the written appraisal, if an appraisal has been prepared," or, if none was prepared, a written statement and summary showing the basis for its amount (MCL 213.55(1)).

No coercion. Under MCL 213.74, to compel agreement on price, "an agency may not advance the time of condemnation, defer negotiations or condemnation, defer the deposit of funds for the use of the owner, nor take any other action coercive in nature."

Claim deadline for property or damage not in the offer. If an owner claims that the agency is taking property not described in the good faith written offer, or claims compensation for damage caused by the taking, apart from the value of the property taken, that the offer does not describe, MCL 213.55(3)(a) requires a written claim filed "within 90 days after the good faith written offer is made pursuant to section 5(1) or 180 days after the complaint is served, whichever is later, unless a later date is set by the court for reasonable cause." The subsection states the consequence plainly: "If the owner fails to timely file the written claim under this subsection, the claim is barred." An owner's appraisal or written estimate of value provided within that period "may serve as the written claim."

Deposit. When the complaint is filed, the agency must deposit "the amount estimated to be just compensation" with a bank, trust company, title company or a state, municipal or county treasurer (MCL 213.55(5)).

Challenging necessity. An owner who wants to challenge "the necessity of acquisition of all or part of the property for the purposes stated in the complaint" may file a motion "within the time prescribed to responsively plead after service of a complaint," and the hearing "shall be held within 30 days after the filing of the motion" (MCL 213.56(1)). For a public agency, its "determination of public necessity by that agency is binding on the court in the absence of a showing of fraud, error of law, or abuse of discretion" (MCL 213.56(2)). The waiver rule is strict: "If a motion to review necessity is not filed as provided in this section, necessity shall be conclusively presumed to exist and the right to have necessity reviewed or further considered is waived" (MCL 213.56(7)). An order upholding necessity can be appealed to the Court of Appeals only by leave, and "[i]n the absence of a timely filed appeal of the order, an appeal shall not be granted and the order is not appealable as part of an appeal from a judgment as to just compensation" (MCL 213.56(6)).

Title. "If a motion to review necessity is not filed under section 6, the title to the property described in the petition shall vest in the agency as of the date on which the complaint was filed" (MCL 213.57(1)).

Jury. Either side "may demand a trial by jury as to the issue of just compensation," and the jury "shall consist of 6 qualified electors" (MCL 213.62(1)).

Possession. Once the time to file a necessity motion expires without one (or, if one is filed, once it is finally decided), "the court shall fix the time and terms for surrender of possession of the property to the agency" (MCL 213.59(1)).

Other owner deadlines in the UCPA:

Inverse condemnation. The UCPA defines a "constructive taking" or "de facto taking" as "conduct, other than regularly established judicial proceedings, sufficient to constitute a taking of property" under article X, section 2 (MCL 213.51(e)), and says an agency "shall not intentionally make it necessary for an owner of property to commence an action, including an action for constructive taking or de facto taking, to prove the fact of the taking of the property" (MCL 213.52(2)). In Hart v. City of Detroit, 416 Mich. 488 (1982), the Michigan Supreme Court applied the general six-year limitation period of MCL 600.5813 to an inverse condemnation action by former owners who had no remaining ownership rights, explaining that the 15-year land period is "predicated upon the plaintiff having continual ownership rights."

How Just Compensation Is Calculated in Michigan

Homes: 125% floor. "If private property consisting of an individual's principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property's fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law" (Mich. Const. art. X, s. 2; the same words appear in MCL 213.23(5)). MCL 213.23(5) adds a condition: "the individual's principal residential structure must be actually taken or the amount of the individual's private property taken leaves less property contiguous to the individual's principal residential structure than the minimum lot size if the local governing unit has implemented a minimum lot size by zoning ordinance."

Principal residence tax amount. For a principal residence that has the principal residence exemption under MCL 211.7cc, MCL 213.55(6) provides an additional amount for a principal residence, "determined by subtracting the taxable value from the state equalized value, multiplying that amount by the total property tax millage rate applicable to the property taken, and multiplying that result by the number of years the owner or owners have owned the principal residence, but not more than 5 years."

Valuation date. "The date of acquiring and of valuation in a proceeding pursuant to this act shall be the date of filing unless the parties agree to a different date, or unless a different date is determined by a counterclaim filed under section 21" (MCL 213.70(3)).

Project effects. General effects of a project "that in varying degrees are experienced by the general public or by property owners from whom no property is taken, shall not be considered in determining just compensation," while a special effect on the owner's property that "standing alone, would constitute a taking" under article X, section 2 "shall be considered" (MCL 213.70(2)). The same subsection adds that, to the extent detrimental effects are considered, "they may be offset by consideration of the beneficial effects of the project."

Partial takings. If taking part of a parcel "would destroy the practical value or utility of the remainder of that parcel, the agency shall pay just compensation for the whole parcel," and the agency "may elect whether to receive title and possession of the remainder" (MCL 213.54(1)).

Interest. The court awards interest on the judgment "from the date of the filing of the complaint to the date that payment of the amount or part of the amount is tendered," computed at the federal income tax deficiency rate, but "an owner remaining in possession after the date that the complaint is filed waives the interest for the period of the possession" (MCL 213.65(1)-(2)).

Attorney Fees, Relocation and Buyback in Michigan

The UCPA shifts fees and expenses in these situations:

• Improper acquisition. If the owner, "by motion to review necessity or otherwise, successfully challenges the agency's right to acquire the property, or the legal sufficiency of the proceedings, and the court finds the proposed acquisition improper, the court shall order the agency to reimburse the owner for actual reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred in defending against the improper acquisition" (MCL 213.66(2)).
• Award above the offer. If just compensation "exceeds the amount of the good faith written offer," the court "shall order reimbursement in whole or in part to the owner by the agency of the owner's reasonable attorney's fees, but not in excess of 1/3 of the amount by which the ultimate award exceeds the agency's written offer" (MCL 213.66(3)).
• Witness fees. An ordinary or expert witness receives from the agency reasonable fees, "including the reasonable expenses for preparation and trial" (MCL 213.66(1)); expert fees are allowed for an expert "whose services were reasonably necessary to allow the owner to prepare for trial," and each party is limited to 1 expert witness per element of compensation unless the court permits more for good cause (MCL 213.66(5)), but the agency need not reimburse attorney or expert witness fees "attributable to an unsuccessful challenge to necessity or to the validity of the proceedings" (MCL 213.66(6)).
• Discontinuance. The agency may not discontinue the action after possession is granted or title vests; on a discontinuance it must pay "the actual expenses, reasonable attorney fees, and actual damages to all the parties affected by the discontinuance as determined by the court" (MCL 213.67).
• Abandonment or acquisition without suit. If an agency abandons its efforts after making its jurisdictional good faith written offer, or acquires the property without filing an action, owners who reasonably relied on the agency's action are reimbursed reasonable expenses of evaluating the offer, preparing for trial or negotiating a settlement, if those expenses would have been taxable as costs under section 16, on a claim filed within the 1-year period in the table above (MCL 213.68).

Under 1965 PA 40, a displaced occupant is reimbursed "the reasonable and necessary moving expense for moving his or her personal property not more than 50 miles," and MCL 213.352(1)(a) caps that moving payment: "The maximum payment to an individual or family shall not exceed $5,250.00. The maximum payment to a business, including the operation of a farm, or a nonprofit organization shall not exceed $15,000.00." Under MCL 213.352(1)(c), "an occupant of residential property who has a leasehold interest of less than 6 months is entitled to elect a fixed payment of $3,500.00" instead of any other payment, and an individual or family may instead elect a fixed moving allowance on the agency's schedule (MCL 213.352(1)(b)). Where the agency follows federal relocation regulations, those take precedence over conflicting provisions (MCL 213.352(4)), and the state maximums do not bar payments made under federal reimbursement rules (MCL 213.353).

The UCPA (MCL 213.51 to 213.75) contains no section giving a former owner the right to buy back condemned land the agency does not use.

Recent Changes to Michigan Easement Law

• 2025 PA 13 (effective September 29, 2025). Amended MCL 565.101, 565.103 and 565.104 of the Marketable Record Title Act and added MCL 565.105a. Section 103(1) now allows a notice of claim to be recorded within 2 years after that effective date to preserve an interest. Under section 105a(2), generic "subject to easements and restrictions of record" wording in an instrument recorded after March 28, 2019, without a liber and page or other county identifying number, does not preserve recorded easements for purposes of sections 2 and 3 of the act.

Michigan Easement and Eminent Domain Rules at a Glance

Related Michigan Property Guides

• Easement laws by state
• Eminent domain laws by state
• Michigan squatters' rights and adverse possession
• Michigan property records
• Michigan quitclaim deed
• Michigan statute of limitations

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Michigan easement and eminent domain law. It is not legal advice. For a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Michigan or the public agency involved.

Last updated: 2026-10-19.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does it take to get a prescriptive easement in Michigan?

15 years. The Michigan Court of Appeals requires use of another's property that is open, notorious, adverse and continuous for 15 years, borrowing the period from MCL 600.5801(4) (Plymouth Canton Community Crier v. Prose, 2000; Mulcahy v. Verhines, 2007). The claimant must show the use by satisfactory proof, and mere permissive use does not count. A prescriptive easement claim cannot be made against a municipal corporation, political subdivision or county road commission in an action over land (MCL 600.5821(2)(c)).

Can you get a prescriptive easement over city or county road commission land in Michigan?

No. In an action involving the recovery or possession of land, MCL 600.5821(2)(c) provides that a municipal corporation, political subdivision of the state or county road commission is not subject to a claim for a prescriptive easement. A separate subsection says an action for recovery of land to which the State is a party is not subject to limitation periods or laches.

What if my land is landlocked in Michigan?

The statutory private-road procedure in MCL 229.1 et seq. was struck down by the Michigan Supreme Court in Tolksdorf v. Griffith (2001). Michigan case law recognizes the common-law easement by necessity, which may be implied where an owner of land splits the property so that one resulting parcel is landlocked except for access across the other. The Court of Appeals held that strict necessity is required, and the easement ends when the necessity ends (Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 2013, quoting Waubun Beach Ass'n v. Wilson, 1936).

How do I stop someone from getting a prescriptive easement in Michigan?

Michigan's land limitation statutes (MCL 600.5801, 600.5821) and its Marketable Record Title Act contain no posted-sign or recorded-notice procedure for blocking a prescriptive easement. The Court of Appeals has held that mere permissive use of another's property will not create a prescriptive easement (Plymouth Canton Community Crier v. Prose, 2000).

How does an easement end in Michigan?

An interest in land can be surrendered only by operation of law or by a signed writing (MCL 566.106). An easement by necessity ends when the necessity for it ends (Waubun Beach Ass'n v. Wilson, 1936, quoted in Charles A. Murray Trust v. Futrell, 2013). Abandonment requires both an intent to relinquish and external acts carrying it out; nonuse by itself is insufficient (Ludington & Northern Railway v. Epworth Assembly, 1991). The Marketable Record Title Act can cut off old recorded interests, but it does not bar clearly observable easements or recorded easements for listed purposes such as driveways, roads, pipes and wires for failure to record a notice (MCL 565.104(1)(c)-(d)).

Can Michigan take my property for a private developer?

Article X, section 2 of the Michigan Constitution, as amended in 2006, says public use does not include taking property for transfer to a private entity for economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. MCL 213.23(2) allows a taking by a public corporation or state agency for transfer to a private entity only where one of three public-attribute tests is met: a public necessity of the extreme sort to assemble property for instrumentalities of commerce (including public utilities and regulated common carriers), continuing public oversight and accountability with the property devoted to public use independent of the private entity, or selection on facts of independent public significance such as blight, and MCL 213.23(6) bars pretext takings.

Can a pipeline or utility company use eminent domain in Michigan?

Yes, by statute for certain pipelines. MCL 483.2 grants the right to condemn rights-of-way for crude oil, petroleum and carbon dioxide pipelines, with proceedings under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act, and MCL 483.102 grants it for natural gas pipe lines used solely within Michigan. MCL 213.23(2)(a) treats a public necessity of the extreme sort that requires collective action to acquire property for instrumentalities of commerce, including a public utility or a state or federally regulated common carrier, as one of the cases where a transfer to a private entity can be a public use. For a private agency, the court decides public necessity, and a certificate from the Michigan Public Service Commission or an authorized federal agency is a prima facie case of public convenience and necessity (MCL 213.56(3)); a commission certificate under the electric transmission line certification act binds the court. An offer for a crude oil, petroleum or carbon dioxide pipeline easement on agricultural property must tell the landowner of the landowner's rights under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act and include a copy of it (MCL 483.2a(3)(g)).

How much does Michigan pay for a home taken by eminent domain?

The Michigan Constitution requires compensation of not less than 125% of fair market value when an individual's principal residence is taken, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law (Mich. Const. art. X, s. 2; MCL 213.23(5)). Under MCL 213.23(5), the home itself must be taken or the taking must leave less contiguous land than a local zoning minimum lot size. For a home with the principal residence exemption under MCL 211.7cc, MCL 213.55(6) adds a further amount, computed from the difference between state equalized value and taxable value, the millage rate and the years owned, up to 5 years.

How do I challenge an eminent domain taking in Michigan?

Under MCL 213.56, an owner may file a motion to review necessity within the time to respond to the complaint, and the hearing must be held within 30 days. For a public agency, its necessity determination binds the court unless there is fraud, error of law or abuse of discretion. If no motion is filed, necessity is conclusively presumed, review is waived, and title vests in the agency as of the date the complaint was filed (MCL 213.57(1)). An order upholding necessity can be appealed only by leave of the Court of Appeals and cannot be raised later in an appeal from the compensation judgment (MCL 213.56(6)).

Does Michigan pay attorney fees in eminent domain cases?

The Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act has several fee rules. If the final award exceeds the agency's good faith written offer, the court must order reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees in whole or in part, capped at one-third of the amount by which the award exceeds the offer. If the owner successfully challenges the agency's right to acquire and the court finds the acquisition improper, the agency must reimburse actual reasonable attorney fees and other expenses (MCL 213.66). The agency also pays witness fees, except those attributable to an unsuccessful challenge to necessity or to the validity of the proceedings; must pay expenses, reasonable attorney fees and damages if it discontinues the action (MCL 213.67); and must reimburse certain expenses when it abandons an acquisition after its offer, on a claim filed within 1 year (MCL 213.68).