|
No. 126409
| Joan M. Glass, |
|
Pamela S. Burt |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Alcona - Kowalski, J.) |
|
|
| Richard A. Goeckel and Kathleen D. Goeckel, |
|
Scott C. Strattard |
Defendants-Appellees. |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Rehearing>>
Defenders of Property Rights', A Washington, D.C. Non-Profit Corporation,
Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Legislator Amici Brief>>
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business
Legal Foundation, Michigan Bankers Association, and Michigan Hotel,
Motel and Resort Association's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Land Use Institute's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
National Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Save Our Shoreline and Great Lakes Coalition, Inc.'s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Richard and Kathleen Goeckel, the defendants, live on property that abuts the beach of Lake Huron, and Joan Glass, the plaintiff, lives across the road. Glass initiated the lawsuit, claiming to have a right-of-way to cross the Goeckels' property to reach the beach, and a right to use that part of the beach between the lake waters and the high-water mark. The parties eventually resolved the right-of-way issue, but could not agree on Glass's right to use the beach. The trial court determined that Glass had a right to use that part of the beach adjacent to the Goeckels' property for pedestrian travel, so long as she stayed below the high-water mark; it based its decision on the Great Lakes Submerged Land Act, MCL 324.32501 et seq . The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Goeckels, and other similarly situated owners, have an exclusive right to use that part of the beach below the high-water mark that is adjacent to their property. But the court held that the state, and not the adjacent landowner, holds title to these lands. Glass appeals.
Top of Page
|
