Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 560 / Act 288 of 1967
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255b (2026)

Presumption of acceptance of land dedicated to use of public; rebuttal.

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

LAND DIVISION ACT


Act 288 of 1967


560.255b Presumption of acceptance of land dedicated to use of public; rebuttal.

Sec. 255b.

    (1) Ten years after the date the plat is first recorded, land dedicated to the use of the public in or upon the plat shall be presumed to have been accepted on behalf of the public by the municipality within whose boundaries the land lies.

    (2) The presumption prescribed in subsection (1) shall be conclusive of an acceptance of dedication unless rebutted by competent evidence before the circuit court in which the land is located, establishing either of the following:

    (a) That the dedication, before the effective date of this act and before acceptance, was withdrawn by the plat proprietor.

    (b) That notice of the withdrawal of the dedication is recorded by the plat proprietor with the office of the register of deeds for the county in which the land is located and a copy of the notice was forwarded to the director of the department of energy, labor, and economic growth, within 10 years after the date the plat of the land was first recorded and before acceptance of the dedicated lands.

History: Add. 1978, Act 556, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 1978 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 63, Imd. Eff. May 6, 2010

PopularName Notes:

Plat Act

PopularName Notes:

Subdivision Control
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: 2000 Baum Fam. Trust v. Babel, 793 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
2000 Baum Fam. Trust v. Babel, 793 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “See MCL 560.255b for the requirements for withdrawals by plat proprietors in a statutory dedication under the current platting statute, the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.”
Higgins Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Gerrish Twp., 662 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Defendants-appellees also argue that the 1978 amendment of the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.255b, created a presumption of acceptance.”
Vivian v. Roscommon Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 446 N.W.2d 161 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 6× “I concur with the result reached by the majority and the reading of clause (b) of § 255b(2) of the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b), as applicable only to a plat recorded on or after December 22, 1978, the effective date of the 1978 amendment, and clause…”
Kraus v. Mich. Dep't of Com., 547 N.W.2d 870 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “See the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b); Vivian, supra.”
Marx v. Dep't of Com., 558 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Finally, we reject the position that a 1978 addition to the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b), creates a presumption that land dedicated to public use shall be presumed to have been accepted under the facts of the present case.”
Christiansen v Gerrish Twp., 608 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “ferred to Grand Boulevard; (2) even though the 1940 McNitt resolution referred to Grand Boulevard as being only 472 feet long, the circumstances indicated that the road commission meant to accept the entire length of the road; (3) the span of thirty-seven years between the offer…”
Martin v. Beldean, 677 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 560.255b(l) provides that land dedicated to the public is presumed to have been accepted on behalf of the public by the applicable municipality ten years after the plat is first recorded.”
Vivian v. Roscommon Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 416 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Second, both the state and the county argue that the trial court erred by not applying MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b) to deny the vacation of the three roads.”
Eyde Bros. Dev. Co. v. Roscommon Cnty. Bd. of Road Commissioners, 411 N.W.2d 814 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “4 Our resolution of this issue obviates the need to address plaintiffs’ arguments directed to the retro-activity of MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b) and the issue of highway by user.”
Reed v. Breton, 691 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “17 MCL 560.255b. 18 Marx v Dep’t of Commerce, 220 Mich App 66, 81-82 ; 558 NW2d 460 (1996).”
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “In rejecting this argument, the trial court correctly observed that MCL 560.255b(1) provides that 10 years after a -8- plat is first recorded, “land dedicated to the use of the public .”
Twp. of Grayling v. Alan Berry (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “” Rather, this Court stated, “We need not consider whether the McNitt resolutions in this case were sufficient to constitute formal acceptance of Montrose Avenue” because the Court resolved the issue “on the basis of MCL 560.255b, the 1978 amendment of the Subdivision Control…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255b(1) — 1 case
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “In rejecting this argument, the trial court correctly observed that MCL 560.255b(1) provides that 10 years after a -8- plat is first recorded, “land dedicated to the use of the public .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255b(2) — 1 case
Eric Colthurst v. Dennis Frederick Bryan (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “In rejecting this argument, the trial court correctly observed that MCL 560.255b(1) provides that 10 years after a -8- plat is first recorded, “land dedicated to the use of the public .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255b(2)(a) — 1 case
Marx v. Dep't of Com., 558 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Finally, we reject the position that a 1978 addition to the Subdivision Control Act, MCL 560.255b; MSA 26.430(255b), creates a presumption that land dedicated to public use shall be presumed to have been accepted under the facts of the present case.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.255b(l) — 1 case
Martin v. Beldean, 677 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. 2004). “MCL 560.255b(l) provides that land dedicated to the public is presumed to have been accepted on behalf of the public by the applicable municipality ten years after the plat is first recorded.”
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.