What Michigan Homeowners’ Associations Should Know About Private Park Ownership
Overview
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an important opinion for Michigan homeowners’ associations and lake communities across the state. In Sutton v Nakfoor, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 11, 2025 (Docket Nos. 372485 and 372489), the Court ruled that when a subdivision plat dedicates a waterfront park “for private use” of certain property owners, that dedication conveys equal fee simple interest—including riparian rights—to the platted and unplatted property owners identified in the dedication.
In other words, when a plat grants private use of a lakefront park, those owners have equal rights to use and enjoy the park and its shoreline, including installing and maintaining docks and hoisting and mooring boats. This decision is significant for Michigan homeowners’ associations and property owners who manage or share access to private lakefront parks.
Case Background: O’Connor Park on Lake Charlevoix
The dispute arose in Evangeline Township, Charlevoix County, within the New Pine Hurst Shores subdivision. The 1976 recorded plat dedicated O’Connor Park “for private use of owners of Lots 11 to 19 inclusive and the owners of the property described as: East of KIM PARK and O’CONNOR PARK, West of CEDAR STREET, South of Lot 19 and North of SOUTH SHORE DRIVE.” For many years, both the platted (Lots 11 to 19) and unplatted property owners used the park’s Lake Charlevoix shoreline for recreation and boating. In 2023, however, several of the platted lot owners asserted that only they, not the other property owners, held riparian rights (legal right of a property owner to use and access water and shoreline of the body of water their property is located on) to the park. “Strictly speaking, land which includes or abuts a river is defined as riparian, while land which includes or abuts a lake is defined as littoral[,]” but “the term ‘riparian’ is often used to describe both types of land.” Thies v Howland, 424 Mich 282, 288 n 2; 380 NW2d 463 (1985). In the notice to unplatted lot owners, the platted lot owners claimed that the owners of Lots 11 to 19 had been conveyed an undivided 1/9 interest in O’Connor Park in their individual deeds. The plaintiffs (owners of the unplatted lots) filed suit, asking the court to confirm that both groups had equal lake access and usage rights under the plat.
The Court’s Decision: Equal Rights for All Owners Identified in the Plat
“[A] private dedication in a plat after January 1, 1968, conveys a fee interest.” Redmond v Van Buren Co, 293 Mich App 344, 354; 819 NW2d 912 (2011). Under MCL 560.253,
(1)when a plat is certified, signed, acknowledged and recorded as prescribed in this act, every dedication, gift or grant to the public or any person, society or corporation marked or noted as such on the plat shall be deemed sufficient conveyance to vest the fee simple of all parcels of land so marked and noted, and shall be considered a general warranty against the donors, their heirs and assigns to the donees for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no other.
This law essentially states the following: a plat is the official map of a subdivision that gets recorded with the county. If that recorded plat shows a private dedication, then that notation itself transfers full ownership (fee simple) to the named recipient, and no separate deed is needed. This transfer includes a warranty from the parties that established the dedication, protecting the recipient’s title, and the land must be used only for the purpose stated on the plat.
Plat dedications under MCL 560.253 are “strictly limited to the words expressly conveyed[.]” 2000 Baum Family Trust v Babel, 488 Mich 136, 159-160; 793 NW2d 633 (2010). “When interpreting deeds and plats, Michigan courts seek to effectuate the intent of those who created them.” Tomecek v Bavas, 482 Mich 484, 490-491; 759 NW2d 178 (2008). “The intent of the plattors must be determined from the language they used [in the dedication] and the surrounding circumstances.” Thies, supra at 293. However, “[w]here the language of a legal instrument is plain and unambiguous, it is to be enforced as written and no further inquiry is permitted.” Little v Kin, 468 Mich 699, 700; 664 NW2d 749 (2003). Extrinsic evidence may only be considered if the language is ambiguous. Id. A legal instrument is “ambiguous when its provisions irreconcilably conflict.” In re Estate of Koch, 322 Mich App 383, 398; 912 NW2d 205 (2017).
Therefore, plat dedications are limited to precisely what the recorded words say and other meanings may not be extrapolated. Courts will honor what the intended meaning of the plat, in that, if the dedication wording is clear, the courts will enforce it as written and disregard outside evidence. Outside evidence will only be considered in the case of ambiguous language in the dedication.
After cross-motions for summary disposition, the Charlevoix Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the plat’s dedication was clear and conveyed a fee simple ownership interest in the park to all identified owners. The dedication explicitly states that O’Connor Park is dedicated “for the private use” of the owners of the specified platted and unplatted properties. The Court noted that the absence of language defining, clarifying, modifying, or restricting the term “private use” does not make the dedication ambiguous or conflict with other provisions. Instead, the lack of limitations allows for any private uses, including the use of riparian or littoral rights. The Court explained that if the plat’s owners intended to restrict the use of O’Connor Park, they would have included more specific, restrictive language. Their failure to do so indicates that the dedication is not ambiguous.
Furthermore, citing the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v Beldean, 469 Mich 541; 677 NW2d 312 (2004), that MCL 560.253(1) indicates the dedication to the donees must be “for their use for the purposes therein expressed and no other,” the Court noted that installing docks and hoisting and mooring boats at a lakefront park is not inconsistent with the private use of the park as a park. However, in contrast, some other private uses, such as the construction of a private dwelling house, would be inconsistent with the use of a waterfront park as a park and, therefore, be prohibited under Martin.
Considering its resolution, the Court necessarily determined that the later recorded deeds claiming to transfer an undivided 1/9 ownership interest in O’Connor Park to the platted property owners were invalid because the rights to the park had already been conveyed in the earlier recorded dedication.
Key Legal Takeaways
Private Dedications Convey Ownership, Not Just Access – Under the Michigan Land Division Act (MCL 560.253), any private dedication in a plat recorded after 1968 transfers fee simple ownership to the identified owners.
“Private Use” Includes Riparian Rights – The Court rejected the argument that “private use” was too vague. Because the plat did not restrict or define that phrase, the dedication covers all private uses, including dock placement, boat mooring, and lake access.
Uses Must Align With a Park’s Purpose – While the park cannot be used, for example, for the construction of a private dwelling, using it for boating, docking, and recreation is consistent with its intended “private park” use.
Later Deeds Cannot Alter Plat Rights – The Court invalidated later deeds attempting to give some platted lot owners an “undivided 1/9 interest” in the park, holding that the original 1976 plat had already conveyed those rights.
Why This Case Matters for Michigan Homeowners Associations
The Sutton v Nakfoor decision highlights several key lessons for Michigan homeowners’ associations:
Plat Language is Controlling – The recorded plat governs ownership and use rights. HOA bylaws or later deeds cannot contradict what the plat provides.
Private Dedications Often Create Shared Ownership – Many Michigan lakefront subdivisions contain parks dedicated to multiple owners, conveying joint ownership and riparian rights.
Guidance for Michigan HOA Boards
If your HOA manages a private park, consider the following steps:
- Review the Recorded Plat and Deed Restrictions – Determine who holds ownership or riparian rights, keeping in mind that the plat will be the controlling factor under Michigan law.
- Avoid Unauthorized Deeds or Transfers – Do not attempt to reassign ownership of common areas already conveyed by a plat.
- Establish Clear Rules for Shared Lake Use – Develop written policies for, among other areas, dock placement, seasonal use, and maintenance.
Conclusion
The Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling in Sutton v Nakfoor confirms that plat dedications carry significant ownership consequences. When a subdivision’s plat dedicates waterfront land for private use, those named owners share riparian rights and must be treated equally under the law. For Michigan homeowners associations, this decision underscores the importance of reviewing plats and understanding members’ rights and responsibilities regarding private parks and lake access.
Contact Our HOA & Real Estate Attorneys
If your association or lake community needs legal guidance on riparian rights, plat interpretation, or property use restrictions, the attorneys at Hirzel Law can help. Hirzel Law, PLC represents Michigan homeowners’ associations and property owners in all aspects of HOA governance and real estate law.
