Finally, Judge Stalbrink recognized that because water levels of Lake Michigan fluctuate, the width of the beach is subject to change, but that there is always a paramount right of the public to access the beach for proper public trust recreational activities. Glass v Goeckel, Mich , N.
Professor Scanlan proposes walking trail within public trust lands and without interference with riparian use based on public trust doctrine in the Great Lakes ; James Olson, All Aboard: Navigating the Course for Universal Adoption of the Public Trust Doctrine, 15 Vt. The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to add the State of Indiana as a party; this case will not proceed in same fashion as the Gunderson case discussed in this paper, which was decided by the same LaPorte County trial court.
Subscribe to the Detroit Free Press today. Facebook Twitter Email. Federal court considering dispute over Lake Michigan access. Unlike traditional fee ownership via a condominium, platted subdivision, or single piece of unplatted land, a co-op or cooperative ownership arrangement involves ownership of a share of a larger development on the lakeshore.
While exceedingly rare, they are not uncommon in older lakeshore developments. For example, in an cottage development, each cottage might be worth one unit. If an owner purchases multiple lots or cottages and builds a new, larger cottage on two such lots, the owner would own two units. Each unit is typically worth one vote within the cooperative.
Some cooperatives are structured so that units and therefore votes, are based on the size or location of the parcel owned. In these cooperatives, the larger parcels and the parcels with the most lake frontage will have more votes, and therefore more control, over the cooperative. One of the major disadvantages to cooperative ownership relates to the ownership and rights of disposition of the parcel owner.
In a cooperative, the owner does not hold the fee title to the real estate upon which the cottage is located. It is owned by the cooperative as a whole and the unit holder simply has an exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of the cottage. Real estate taxes for the entire cooperative are apportioned among the various unit holders in relation to the size, and perceived value, of their respective units in relation to the whole. Because an owner does not hold fee title to the real estate, an owner often cannot dispose of the unit without the permission of the cooperative.
If you are considering a purchase of a cottage that is owned by a cooperative, it is very important to have the cooperative agreements reviewed by one of our property attorneys in order to fully understand the rights and limitations associated with ownership, use, and disposition of a cooperative unit of Lake Michigan waterfront property.
Many parcels of Lake Michigan waterfront property have been owned by one or more family members as a family cottage for generations. The drawback to such arrangements related to rights of use.
Many families operated on the honor system and had unwritten rules regarding times of use and how maintenance, repair, and other expenses were shared. Over the years, family cottage ownership of Lake Michigan waterfront property evolved into more complex arrangements where entities were formed to hold title with various family members owning an interest in the entity. Entity ownership could provide liability protection if the family chose to rent the family cottage for a portion of the year and could also provide a simple gifting mechanism for older family members.
An operating agreement is prepared which dictates the rights and obligations of the members for use of the family cottage, as well as the share of taxes, association dues, maintenance, repair, and other ownership expenses.
Like the Family LP, the Family LLC can also provide a gifting mechanism for older family members and place certain restrictions on the disposition of the membership interests to ensure that the family cottage remains owned by the family.
As with any entity form of ownership, the organizational documents, especially the operating agreement, should be prepared by an attorney. Michigan Public Act 56 of prohibits the use of public road ends for construction, installation, maintenance, or use of boat hoists or boat anchorage devices, mooring or docking of a vessel between 12 midnight and sunrise or any activity that obstructs ingress to or egress from the inland lake or stream.
A public road end shall not be used for construction or use of a dock or wharf other than a single permanent or seasonal public dock or wharf that is owned by the local unit of government and authorized by the Department of Environmental Quality. Bloom can be viewed HERE. Riparian Magazine. Clean Boats Clean Waters. Facebook Twitter Instagram. Public Rights on Michigan Waters Michigan riparian property owners who own land on navigable inland lakes or streams own the respective bottom lands covered by water, however, they do not own the water or the fish that swim within those waters.
0コメント