Combing two parcels across different platted subdivisions in MI - Ask Extension
My family purchased two lots that border one another in the rear, and the assessor has sat on the land combination application for the better part of...
Knowledgebase
Combing two parcels across different platted subdivisions in MI #867130
Asked May 05, 2024, 5:33 PM EDT
My family purchased two lots that border one another in the rear, and the assessor has sat on the land combination application for the better part of 14 months. I get pushback and excuses every time I call on getting the combination pushed through (i.e. vacation, too busy, out of the office, etc.). Recently, I was told that they cannot be combined due to the fact that the lots are platted in two different subdivisions. Is this a reason to block combination? The assessor is now asking the Village Manager for permission to combine these. Should I be prepared for a "No" on the approval? I cannot seem to find this as being a reason to not allow combination in the MI Assessor's Manual.
TIA for the help!
Van Buren County Michigan
Expert Response
Greetings,
The platting of land to create a subdivision is a highly complex local and state government process regulated under the Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, as amended (previously the Subdivision Control Act, and the Plat Act before that). Once land is platted as a subdivision, that is how the real property therein is legally described (e.g., Lot 5 of Hewitt's Addition) unless the plat is formally amended under procedures also detailed in the Land Division Act.
An assessor cannot unilaterally amend the plat, or in the case in question, unilaterally amend two plats. This action would actually require a replat of each subdivision under MCL 560.104.
A lot owner can initiate a replat under 104(a) working with their neighbors and the municipality. This is called a “proprietor replat.” A proprietor replat requires support of all lot owners in the plat/subdivision (i.e. it requires replat agreements with each lot owner). If there is any area dedicated to public use that will be affected by the replat, the process also then would require the municipality to vacate.
A proprietor replat under 104(a) triggers or results in additional steps as detailed in MCL 560.111-120 – Preliminary Plats. This is essentially the making of an entirely new plat of the subdivision with requirements of a detailed survey and approvals by all of the pertinent agencies! As a legal process created the plat, only a legal process can change the plat. These steps would be required for both subdivisions such that one lot is essentially removed from one of the subdivisions and is instead added to the other subdivision. This would be a very onerous process (or set of processes). This is not done without an attorney.
An alternative process is seeking circuit court action to revise the plats under MCL 560.221 - 560.229. This would require 'filing a complaint' and convincing the circuit court judge this is worth their time. This is not done without an attorney.
It is a separate question as to whether two lots in different subdivisions could be ‘combined’ for property tax purposes. This may be permissible under the General Property Tax Act, PA 206 of 1893, as amended. Importantly, this does not legally combine the physical property, it simply results in a single property tax bill that describes the two lots (e.g., Lot 5 of Hewitt's Addition and Lot 29 of Meadow View Subdivision). This is commonly done for adjoining lots in a single subdivision owned by the same individual and for adjoining parcels (unplatted land) owned by a single individual.
In summary, it may be possible to physically combine two lots in adjoining subdivisions, though the assessor cannot do so unilaterally because it is a very detailed statutorily defined process requiring the coordination with many, many individuals and agencies and likely the custodial support of an experienced attorney. The costs of doing so very likely outweigh the benefit, though that is a personal determination.
This is not legal advice.
The platting of land to create a subdivision is a highly complex local and state government process regulated under the Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, as amended (previously the Subdivision Control Act, and the Plat Act before that). Once land is platted as a subdivision, that is how the real property therein is legally described (e.g., Lot 5 of Hewitt's Addition) unless the plat is formally amended under procedures also detailed in the Land Division Act.
An assessor cannot unilaterally amend the plat, or in the case in question, unilaterally amend two plats. This action would actually require a replat of each subdivision under MCL 560.104.
A lot owner can initiate a replat under 104(a) working with their neighbors and the municipality. This is called a “proprietor replat.” A proprietor replat requires support of all lot owners in the plat/subdivision (i.e. it requires replat agreements with each lot owner). If there is any area dedicated to public use that will be affected by the replat, the process also then would require the municipality to vacate.
A proprietor replat under 104(a) triggers or results in additional steps as detailed in MCL 560.111-120 – Preliminary Plats. This is essentially the making of an entirely new plat of the subdivision with requirements of a detailed survey and approvals by all of the pertinent agencies! As a legal process created the plat, only a legal process can change the plat. These steps would be required for both subdivisions such that one lot is essentially removed from one of the subdivisions and is instead added to the other subdivision. This would be a very onerous process (or set of processes). This is not done without an attorney.
An alternative process is seeking circuit court action to revise the plats under MCL 560.221 - 560.229. This would require 'filing a complaint' and convincing the circuit court judge this is worth their time. This is not done without an attorney.
It is a separate question as to whether two lots in different subdivisions could be ‘combined’ for property tax purposes. This may be permissible under the General Property Tax Act, PA 206 of 1893, as amended. Importantly, this does not legally combine the physical property, it simply results in a single property tax bill that describes the two lots (e.g., Lot 5 of Hewitt's Addition and Lot 29 of Meadow View Subdivision). This is commonly done for adjoining lots in a single subdivision owned by the same individual and for adjoining parcels (unplatted land) owned by a single individual.
In summary, it may be possible to physically combine two lots in adjoining subdivisions, though the assessor cannot do so unilaterally because it is a very detailed statutorily defined process requiring the coordination with many, many individuals and agencies and likely the custodial support of an experienced attorney. The costs of doing so very likely outweigh the benefit, though that is a personal determination.
This is not legal advice.
