Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b (2026)

Public road end; prohibited use; violation as misdemeanor; fine; civil action; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT


Act 451 of 1994


324.30111b Public road end; prohibited use; violation as misdemeanor; fine; civil action; definitions.

Sec. 30111b.

    (1) A public road end shall not be used for any of the following unless a recorded deed, recorded easement, or other recorded dedication expressly provides otherwise:

    (a) Construction, installation, maintenance, or use of boat hoists or boat anchorage devices.

    (b) Mooring or docking of a vessel between 12 midnight and sunrise.

    (c) Any activity that obstructs ingress to or egress from the inland lake or stream.

    (2) A public road end shall not be used for the construction, installation, maintenance, or use of a dock or wharf other than a single seasonal public dock or wharf that is authorized by the local unit of government, subject to any permit required under this part. This subsection does not prohibit any use that is expressly authorized by a recorded deed, recorded easement, or other recorded dedication. This subsection does not permit any use that exceeds the uses authorized by a recorded deed, recorded easement, other recorded dedication, or a court order.

    (3) A local unit of government may prohibit a use of a public road end if that use violates this section.

    (4) A person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00. Each 24-hour period in which a violation exists represents a separate violation of this section. A peace officer may issue an appearance ticket as authorized by sections 9c to 9g of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 764.9c to 764.9g, to a person who violates subsection (1) or (2).

    (5) This section does not prohibit a person or agency from commencing a civil action for conduct that violates this section.

    (6) As used in this section:

    (a) "Local unit of government" means a township, city, or village in which the public road end is located.

    (b) "Public road end" means the terminus at an inland lake or stream of a road that is lawfully open for use by the public.

History: Add. 2012, Act 56, Imd. Eff. Mar. 22, 2012 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 168, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2014

PopularName Notes:

Act 451

PopularName Notes:

NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 23× “Grayling also maintained that the activities of the residents violated MCL 324.30111b, and Grayling sought to enjoin the individual residents from violating both the scope of the dedication and MCL 324.”
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “To the extent that the trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of MCL 324.30111b, the interpretation and application of a statute is reviewed de novo.”
Justin Bartlett v. City of Lake City (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “This is especially apparent considering the language of MCL 324.30111b, which forbids private docks at road ends unless expressly authorized by a recorded deed or dedication.”
William Kraus v. Michael Link (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “After sending them another letter which did not result in the desired response, plaintiffs sued the Links, Leckenby, Osmun, and Smith for a declaratory judgment that their activities violated MCL 324.30111b of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL…”
William Kraus v. Michael Link (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “After sending them another letter which did not result in the desired response, plaintiffs sued the Links, Leckenby, Osmun, and Smith for a declaratory judgment that their activities violated MCL 324.30111b of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(2) — 1 case
Justin Bartlett v. City of Lake City (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “This is especially apparent considering the language of MCL 324.30111b, which forbids private docks at road ends unless expressly authorized by a recorded deed or dedication.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(3) — 1 case
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Grayling also maintained that the activities of the residents violated MCL 324.30111b, and Grayling sought to enjoin the individual residents from violating both the scope of the dedication and MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(4) — 1 case
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Grayling also maintained that the activities of the residents violated MCL 324.30111b, and Grayling sought to enjoin the individual residents from violating both the scope of the dedication and MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(5) — 1 case
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Grayling also maintained that the activities of the residents violated MCL 324.30111b, and Grayling sought to enjoin the individual residents from violating both the scope of the dedication and MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(6) — 2 cases
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “To the extent that the trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of MCL 324.30111b, the interpretation and application of a statute is reviewed de novo.”
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Grayling also maintained that the activities of the residents violated MCL 324.30111b, and Grayling sought to enjoin the individual residents from violating both the scope of the dedication and MCL 324.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(6)(b) — 1 case
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “To the extent that the trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of MCL 324.30111b, the interpretation and application of a statute is reviewed de novo.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30111b(6)(c) — 1 case
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “To the extent that the trial court’s ruling hinged on its interpretation of MCL 324.30111b, the interpretation and application of a statute is reviewed de novo.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.