Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels attorney James Fraser recently achieved an important appellate victory in a published Michigan Court of Appeals decision involving riparian rights and waterfront property law.
On April 1, 2026, James successfully obtained a unanimous published opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals in Barnard v. J.G. Pray’s Subdivision Homeowners Association, reversing the trial court's ruling against his clients. The decision vacated the trial court's judgments, reversed a nuisance verdict against the J.G. Pray's Subdivision Homeowners Association, and eliminated a court-imposed 30-foot length restriction on the Association's dock.
The case centered on a longstanding easement established in 1920 that grants subdivision lot owners access to Whitmore Lake and the right to use a shared dock. The plaintiffs, who own the lakefront property burdened by the easement, filed suit after alleging a substantial increase in use beginning around 2017. They sought to enforce restrictions contained in a 1992 supplemental court order from earlier litigation, including a 30-foot dock limitation and restrictions on certain waterfront activities.
Although the trial court determined that the 1992 order had expired and was no longer enforceable, it nevertheless ruled in favor of the plaintiffs after trial, awarding $5,000 in damages for nuisance and imposing several new restrictions. These included limiting the dock to 30 feet and requiring swimming, wading, and fishing to occur only on one side of the dock.
On appeal, James successfully argued that these restrictions had no legal basis. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the easement itself contained no limitation on dock length and that the expired 1992 order could not be used to impose new restrictions. The Court further concluded that limiting recreational activities to one side of the dock improperly altered the clear language of the easement and conflicted with its long-established historical use.
The Court also reversed the nuisance judgment against the homeowners association, finding there was no evidence that the Association itself—not individual property owners—was responsible for the alleged nuisance. As a result, the nuisance verdict could not stand as a matter of law.
Published Court of Appeals opinions help shape Michigan law and provide guidance to courts and attorneys throughout the state, making this decision especially significant for future waterfront property and riparian rights disputes.
James joined Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels in March 2025 and practices appellate advocacy, civil litigation, probate litigation, domestic relations, and real estate law. His passion for riparian rights extends beyond the courtroom—he’s an avid fisherman and waterfront property owner, giving him a personal appreciation for the legal issues that affect Michigan's lakes, shorelines, and waterfront communities.
Website Hosting by Network Services Group, LLC
SEO by Michigan SEO Group