Sharing access to a lakefront can seem like a straightforward arrangement between neighbours, particularly when both families contribute money and effort to build facilities. But an informal understanding can become a costly property dispute when ownership changes and the new owners refuse to honour the arrangement. In Michigan, a couple who helped build a boardwalk and dock believing they could use them to reach a lake found themselves without a legally enforceable easement after the neighbouring property was sold.In its October 28, 2026, unpublished decision in Jeremy Leffring v. Mark Cahill, available on Justia, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a $55,750 award to the couple for improvements they had made to the neighbouring property. The court agreed that they had not established an enforceable easement because there was no written agreement. However, it found that they were entitled to compensation because they had not acted in bad faith when constructing and maintaining the boardwalk and dock. The appeals court also upheld the dismissal of the new owners’ claim seeking indemnification from the previous owners.
How the neighbours agreed to share lake access
The dispute involved Jeremy and Ivanna Leffring, who owned a home near a lake in Michigan, and their neighbours, Timothy and Allison Updyke. The two families had an arrangement under which they shared access to the lake through a boardwalk and dock located on the Updykes’ property. Both families mutually constructed the boardwalk and dock for shared use and contributed to maintaining the improvements, believing that the Leffrings could continue using the facilities to reach the water.However, the arrangement was never formalised through a written easement. An easement is a legal right that allows someone to use another person’s property for a specific purpose, such as accessing a lake or crossing a neighbouring parcel. The Updykes eventually sold their property to Mark Cahill and Lindsey Bissett. The new owners initially allowed the Leffrings to continue using the boardwalk, but the relationship deteriorated in 2022.The conflict escalated after the Leffrings listed their home for sale and planned to lease it to tenants until the property was sold. Cahill and Bissett then installed a ‘No Trespassing’ sign along the boardwalk and placed a pile of sticks along the route used by the Leffrings, their family members and guests. The couple subsequently sought legal protection to continue accessing the lake.
Why the court upheld the $55,750 compensation
The trial court concluded that the verbal arrangement did not create an enforceable easement because Michigan’s statute of frauds required the agreement to be documented in writing. However, the court considered whether the Leffrings could receive compensation for the improvements they had made to the Updykes’ property. Under Michigan Court Rule 3.411(F), a party who loses a claim to title to disputed property may seek compensation for the increase in the property’s value resulting from buildings or improvements they made. However, compensation is not available if those improvements were made in bad faith.After a bench trial, the court found that the Leffrings had acted in good faith. They had mutually agreed with the previous owners to build and maintain the boardwalk and dock, shared the construction expenses and continued maintaining the facilities after the property changed hands. The new owners had also initially allowed them to use the facilities without objection and even helped with annual maintenance during their first year of ownership. The court therefore awarded the couple $55,750, representing their contribution to the increase in the value of the neighbouring property through the improvements.
New owners’ attempt to recover money from previous owners fails
Cahill and Bissett also argued that the Updykes should compensate them for the financial consequences of the dispute. They claimed that the previous owners had failed to disclose the claimed easement properly when selling the property. However, the Updykes had marked the existence of encroachments and easements as unknown in their disclosure statement while specifically mentioning that the dock was shared with the neighbour to the east.The appeals court found that the new owners could not simultaneously argue that no enforceable easement existed and claim compensation for the failure to disclose an easement that had no legal validity. It also rejected their argument for equitable indemnification, finding insufficient evidence that the Updykes had been unjustly enriched at their expense. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, leaving the $55,750 compensation award intact.The ruling highlights the financial risks of relying on informal property arrangements. Although the Leffrings could not secure a legal right to continue accessing the lake, the court recognised their good-faith investment in improvements that increased the value of land they did not own.
About The Author
