Massive Higgins Lake Appellate Challenge Opposes 'Projectless' Special Assessment Scheme

The property rights law firm of Outside Legal Counsel PLC has filed a sweeping appellate challenge on behalf of the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association and nearly 600 affected property owners, marking one of the largest coordinated legal challenges to a special assessment in Michigan in recent years. The filing targets what plaintiffs describe as a fundamental breakdown of constitutional and statutory limits on government power in the imposition of a lake-level special assessment district by Roscommon and Crawford Counties.

The case arises from the Counties’ use of Part 307 of Michigan law to impose a special assessment tied to Higgins Lake. But according to the filed appellate brief, the Counties never did what the law requires before imposing such an assessment: they did not define a project, did not calculate actual costs, and did not determine whether any individual property would receive a measurable and proportional benefit. Instead, the assessment was imposed first, with justification deferred or left unproven.

That inversion, the plaintiffs argue, is not a mere procedural irregularity—it is a constitutional failure.

The record reflects the absence of every element that gives a special assessment its legal footing. There is no defined project. There is no computed cost. There is no parcel-specific analysis of increased market value. There is no demonstration of proportional benefit. And most strikingly, the structure of the assessment reveals a circular design—one that funds its own administration, justification, and continuation rather than any finite improvement.

“This case is straightforward,” said Philip L. Ellison, counsel for the appellants and a leading property and riparian rights attorney in Michigan. “A special assessment exists at the constitutional edge. It is tolerated only because it is tied to real, measurable benefits. That never happened here. You cannot impose first and justify later.”

The appeal draws on long-settled constitutional principles that forbid government from shifting public costs onto a subset of property owners without proving that the imposed charge corresponds to a concrete and proportional benefit. When that boundary is crossed, what is labeled a “special assessment” becomes something else entirely—an unlawful exaction imposed without the safeguards that taxation requires.

The filing also challenges the structure of the assessment district itself, alleging that it arbitrarily includes certain property owners while excluding others who benefit equally from Higgins Lake as a public resource. In addition, the plaintiffs raise serious due process concerns, asserting that the Counties restricted access to critical financial and assessment information in a manner not reasonably calculated to inform those affected.

At its core, the case asks whether local governments may convert a narrow, constitutionally constrained financing tool into an open-ended revenue mechanism untethered from proof, proportionality, or project definition.

The plaintiffs seek reversal of the assessment and a declaration reaffirming a basic rule: before a special assessment may be imposed, the government must identify a project, determine its cost, and establish that each assessed property receives a measurable, proportional benefit.

Outside Legal Counsel PLC, which maintains a dedicated Higgins Lake satellite office serving northern Michigan property owners (upnorth.olcplc.com), has been at the forefront of property rights litigation across the state. The firm’s involvement in this case reflects its continued focus on challenging government overreach and defending constitutional limits on the use of special assessments.

“This case matters greatly for Higgins Lake and its property owners,” Ellison added. “If this stands, it becomes a template. Local governments will simply shift public costs onto a targeted group of citizens without proving benefit, without defining scope, and without accountability. The Constitution does not permit that, and it never has.”

The case is currently pending before the Roscommon County Circuit Court, with oral argument not yet scheduled.