(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s resolution of this case was erroneous under MCL 224.18; MSA 9.118, which provides in pertinent part:
The board of county road commissioners of any county which has adopted the county road system is hereby authorized and empowered to, at any time, either relinquish jurisdiction of or absolutely abandon and discontinue any county road, or any part thereof, by a resolution adopted by a majority vote. The vote of the county road commissioners in respect to either such relinquishment of jurisdiction or absolute abandonment and discontinuance shall be taken and entered, and notice thereof be given, in the same manner as required in this section, in cases in which county roads are adopted. After proceedings to relinquish jurisdiction have been had, the jurisdiction and control of *228such road, or part thereof, shall revert to the township or municipality within which the same is situated, and the county shall be relieved of the responsibility therefor. [Emphasis added.]
In deciding this case, the trial court stated:
[N]othing in the statute gives the county road commission any discretion to determine to whom jurisdiction will revert. The statute provides clearly to whom jurisdiction reverts and the language is mandatory.
This Court believes its [sic] patently clear the part thereof [sic] Lake Angelus Road within the City of Lake Angelus shall revert to Lake Angelus and the part within Auburn Hills shall revert to Auburn Hills.
The Court believes that the county road commissions [sic] resolution was invalid only in its effort to award a portion of the road, but the relinquishment was valid and, therefore, the Court will give to the City of Lake Angelus that part that’s located within Lake Angelus and the remaining part within Auburn Hills shall revert to Auburn Hills.
Unlike the majority, I agree with the trial court that the road commission’s attempt to relinquish jurisdiction of the entire width of Angelus Lake Road to the City of Auburn Hills, although unauthorized, did not render the relinquishment invalid ab initio. Like the trial court, I am of the opinion that the commission’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction should stand, accompanied by a declaration that by operation of law jurisdiction reverts to both Lake Angelus and Auburn Hills.
As the statute provides, the county has no discretion to determine which entity is to receive jurisdiction over the road. The statute clearly provides that once the relinquishment decision is *229made, jurisdiction and control over the road shall revert to the township or municipality within which the road is situated. Therefore, it is clear that under MCL 224.18; MSA 9.118, when a county manifests an intent to relinquish jurisdiction and control over a county road, under operation of the statute, jurisdiction of the road reverts to the township or municipality within which the road is situated. The intention of the county road commission is not a deciding factor:
The statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and the trial court properly gave effect to the plain meaning of the statute in this matter. Smith v Ruberg, 167 Mich App 13, 16; 421 NW2d 557 (1988). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s determination that the decision to relinquish jurisdiction of Lake Angelus Road was valid and that by operation of law jurisdiction should revert to both Lake Angelus and Auburn Hills.