[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 5929

June 25, 1981

PLATS:

Requirement for making of plat

The first of two owners of adjoining land who subdivides the land into four one-acre parcels must make and record a plat before making such subdivision of the land, such subdivision being preceded by a transfer of land from one adjoining owner to the other to accomplish the subdivision of each remaining tract into four one-acre parcels.

The Honorable Bill S. Huffman

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to whether a proposed conveyance of land and division of land would require the making and recording of a plat in accordance with the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, 1967 PA 288; MCLA 560.101 et seq; MSA 26.430(101) et seq.

The Subdivision Control Act, supra, is designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare through appropriate review of plans for the orderly development of land. Barton v City ofOmaha, 180 Neb 752; 145 NW2d 444 (1966). Review of the proposed plat and conditions required for approval are designed to secure to purchasers adequate ingress and egress to lands subdivided. Rose v Parklane Homes Corp., 59 Mich App 542; 229 NW2d 838 (1975). It also serves to protect life and property from the dangers incident to construction in floodplains, and to lend assurance to purchasers that lands to be developed are suitable for building purposes, i.e., that the lands are suitable for placement of septic systems or are adequately served by central sewer and water systems.

The question you raise may be addressed by considering the following factural situation.

(a) Adams owns a 1 acre parcel (Parcel A) which he acquired in 1970 and has not divided it in the intervening eleven years.

(b) Brown owns a 7 acre parcel (Parcel B) contiguous to Parcel A. Brown acquired Parcel B in 1970 and has not divided it in the intervening elevent years.

(c) In 1981 Brown proposes to convey to Adams a 3 acre parcel taken from Parcel B and contiguous to Parcel A.

(d) In 1981 after effecting the conveyance described, Adams and Brown each propose to divide their parcels into four one-acre parcels for purposes of sale or building development.

1967 PA 288, supra, Sec. 102, defines 'parcel' or 'tract' as meaning:

'[A] continuous area or acreage of land which can be described as provided for in this act'

and defines 'subdivide' or 'subdivision' as meaning:

'[T]he partitioning or dividing of a parcel or tract of land by the proprietor thereof or by his heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors or assigns for the purpose of sale, or lease of more than one year, or of building development, where the act of division creates 5 or more parcels of land each of which is 10 acres or less in area; or 5 or more parcels of land each of which is 10 acres or less in area are created by successive divisions within a period of 10 years.'

In the example cited, eight parcels each less than ten acres in area would be created within one year from Parcel B.

The first of Adams or Brown to effect a division of his or her ownership into four one-acre parcels is required to make a plat. Should Adams be first in time to make a division of his or her ownership into four one-acre parcels, there would have been created from Parcel B five parcels of land, each of which is less than ten acres:

1-4 acre parcel

2-1 acre parcels

2-1/2 acre parcels

While an assemblage of a four acre tract was effected by the conveyance of a three acre tract to Adams, neither parent Parcels A nor B lose its identity for purposes of determining whether a 'subdivision' is effect (1) and a plat required, 1967 PA 288, supra, Sec. 103(1) providing:

'Any subdivision of land which results in a subdivision as defined in section 102 shall be surveyed and a plat thereof submitted, approved and recorded as required by the provisions of this act.'

Should Adams thereupon plat his or her subdivision, Brown could make his or her proposed division without platting since only four unplatted parcels would be created from the balance of Parcel B. Should Brown be first in time to make a division, there would be created from Parcel B:

4-1 acre parcels

1-3 acre parcel

Thus, Brown would be required to make a plat of the four one-acre parcels.

Should Brown thereupon plat his or her subdivision, Adams could make his or her proposed division without platting since only four unplatted parcels would be created.

The Legislature may wish to amend the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, supra, in the interest of a more logical result with respect to the second subdivider to require that such subdivider also file a plat.

In conclusion, in the case described, subsequent to the conveyance of the three acre parcel from Brown to Adams, it is my opinion that the first of Adams or Brown to divide his or her resulting four acre tract into four one-acre tracts must make and record a plat consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, supra.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

(1) The previous opinions of this office discussing 'merger' are applicable. In each of the instances there involved, the merger was between parcels taken from the same parent parcel. See OAG, 1977-1978, No 5361, p 610 (September 12, 1978). See also letters to Senator Byker, October 28, 1977; Representative Smith, December 12, 1977 and Represenative Smith, March 31, 1970, re division of assemblages.

 


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]