The Dual Lawsuits Against the Higgins Lake Special Assessment District

Special assessments have long been part of Michigan law, but they are also one of the most misunderstood tools used by local government. Unlike general taxes, which are spread broadly and paid by everyone, special assessments are targeted charges imposed on a specific group of property owners to pay for specific public improvements. Because they single out particular properties, Michigan law has always required strict limits on how and when special assessments may be used.

Over time, courts have recognized that special assessments are constitutionally permissible only if certain safeguards are respected. Before property owners can be required to pay, government must identify what project is being proposed, determine what it will cost, and show that the properties being assessed receive a proportional benefit from that project. Those requirements exist to prevent special assessments from becoming a backdoor form of taxation imposed on a small group for the benefit of the public at large.

The disputes involving Higgins Lake arise from a fundamental disagreement about whether those safeguards still apply at the front end of the process, or whether government may instead establish a list of who must pay first and justify that decision later. Because that question arises at more than one stage, it has resulted in two related but distinct court cases.

Less-than-Ten Minute Video Explainer:

Case 1: Whether the Higgins Lake SAD Should Have Been Created in 2023

The first case, now pending before the Michigan Supreme Court, challenges the creation of the Higgins Lake Special Assessment District itself. In 2023, Roscommon and Crawford Counties asked the local circuit court to approve the boundaries of a special assessment district covering property owners around Higgins Lake even though no specific project had been identified, no costs had been calculated, and no showing had been made that individual properties would receive a proportional benefit.

Court Filing: Application for Leave to Appeal filed with the Michigan Supreme Court (PDF)

At the confirmation hearing, property owners were not allowed to raise questions about project scope, cost, or benefit. They were told those issues could be addressed later, after the SAD was already approved. The lower courts accepted that approach, concluding that it was permissible to create the district first and address the substance of any assessments later. Case 1 challenges that sequence.

The position advanced to the Michigan Supreme Court on January 26, 2026 is that Michigan law does not allow government to decide who must pay before knowing what they are being asked to pay for. Once a special assessment district is confirmed, the most important issue—whether a property should be included at all—is effectively decided. Later proceedings may adjust amounts, but they cannot meaningfully restore the lost opportunity to challenge inclusion in the district itself.

Case 2: Whether the Assessments Being Imposed Are Lawful

The second case, which is currently pending in the Roscommon County Circuit Court, readdresses many of the same issues but now at next phase of the process. On September 2, 2025, a "protest" hearing was held at Roscommon High School. County officials have claimed that property owners were required to submit a written protest at or before this hearing to preserve their right to appeal in court. Our firm vehemently disagrees with that requirement as being lawful. However, to take a "belt and suspenders" approach, we encouraged as many owners as possible to file written protests before September 2 to make sure no rights are lost. Over 500 of you signed up with our office with the support of the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association. Without much notice to property owners, the counties moved forward in late September 2025 with their "project" to refund past expenses charging property owners $140 or $70 per parcel and began imposing assessments to pay for them. Case 2 challenges whether those assessments comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Even if a special assessment district exists, the law still requires that any charges imposed be tied to defined projects, that the amounts be reasonable, and that the costs be allocated in a manner that is fair and proportionate to the benefits received. Case 2 asks whether the current assessments meet those standards. Briefing in that case has begun, and the local circuit court is being asked to heavily scrutinize whether the county government’s demands exceed what the Constitution and Michigan allow. The current "small" assessment — amounting to less than two hundred dollars per parcel — is nothing more than a test balloon. The Counties are using it to establish the district and the precedent for collecting money from property owners. Once that foothold is in place, a much larger, multi-million-dollar assessment is expected to follow to fund dam projects, infrastructure, and other undefined expenses. In other words, what looks like a modest first step today is designed to open the door to far greater financial burdens in the near future. Property owners who fail to challenge this assessment now may find themselves trapped in a system that paves the way for enormous bills later.

Why Both Cases Matter

Although the two cases address different stages of the special assessment process, they are driven by the same underlying concern. Special assessments are supposed to be limited, project-specific tools, not open-ended funding mechanisms. If government can create assessment districts without defining projects or costs, and then return repeatedly to impose new charges, the safeguards that distinguish special assessments from general taxation disappear.

Once approved, a special assessment district can remain attached to a property for many years, even as projects change and ownership turns over. Without clear limits at the outset, property owners face the risk of being subject to repeated charges without meaningful judicial review. That outcome undermines the very principles that have historically justified special assessments under Michigan law.

Together, Case 1 and Case 2 seek to restore those guardrails. Case 1 asks whether the rules were followed at the starting line. Case 2 asks whether the charges now being imposed can be justified under the Constitution. The ultimate goal in both cases is the same: to ensure that special assessments are used fairly and lawfully, and that property owners are treated as participants in their communities, not as an unlimited source of revenue.

We Are At The Forefront

The law firm of Outside Legal Counsel PLC (with offices in Roscommon and Hemlock, Michigan) has positioned itself as leading voice of defending property owners’ rights across Michigan. The Higgins Lake SAD litigation is not a single dispute over a single assessment, but a coordinated, two-track effort aimed at restoring long-standing constitutional and statutory limits that have eroded over time.

we are simultaneously litigating the threshold legality of creating a special assessment district without a defined project, cost, or proportional benefit (now pending before the Michigan Supreme Court) while also pressing a second case in the Roscommon County Circuit Court challenging whether the assessments actually imposed can be justified under the Constitution. That dual approach reflects the reality of how special assessments operate in practice and ensures that the issue is addressed both at the starting line and at the point of collection.

Very few challenges have ever been brought to Michigan’s lake-level special assessment framework under Part 307. Fewer still have resulted in Supreme Court review. By advancing these cases in partnership with and with the support of the Higgins Lake Property Owners Association, OLC is helping to clarify the rules and limits that govern when special assessments may be used, how they must be justified, and what guardrails exist under the Constitution for local government’s ability to single out property owners for targeted raids on their checkbooks.

The Higgins Lake SAD challenges are not about resisting lawful public projects. They are about insisting that when government asks a defined group of property owners to pay, it must first do the work the law requires — define the project, identify the cost, and show a fair, proportional benefit. Through this litigation, OLC is helping to ensure that special assessments remain a narrow, disciplined tool, not an open-ended substitute for general taxation.