Charter Township of Lyon v. Marlene Hoskins
317 Mich. App. 482
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Charter Township of Lyon) sought enforcement of the township R-1.0 Residential Agricultural zoning ordinance against two neighboring property owners, the Pettys and the Hoskinses, who operated Petty Trucking and Hoskins Landscaping from their residences.
- The properties have been zoned residential/agricultural since 1957; defendants operated commercial uses there for decades without prior township enforcement and paid commercial personal property taxes.
- The neighborhood transitioned from rural to suburban, with new residential subdivisions and modern homes neighboring the defendants’ parcels; neighbors complained about business-related noise and activity.
- In October 2013 the township issued zoning violation warnings and, after noncompliance, filed suit seeking injunctive relief to stop the commercial uses; defendants moved for summary disposition asserting laches and equitable estoppel defenses.
- At summary disposition the circuit court granted the township relief; the court held defendants failed to prove the prejudice required for laches or estoppel and thus the township could enforce the zoning ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ long‑standing commercial uses create a protected nonconforming use | Lyon: Uses were never permitted under R‑1.0 and thus not protected | Defendants: Long‑time tolerance by township and investments vested rights or estoppel | Held: No vested nonconforming use; commercial uses never lawfully conformed, so no protection |
| Whether township’s delay bars enforcement under laches | Lyon: Delay alone insufficient; enforcement may be sought to restore zoning | Defendants: Township’s decades of inaction caused prejudice, making enforcement inequitable | Held: Defendants failed to show requisite prejudice from delay; laches fails |
| Whether township is equitably estopped from enforcing ordinance | Lyon: Estoppel requires clear representation, justifiable reliance, and prejudice | Defendants: Permissive conduct, building permits, inspections, and tax bills induced reliance and investment | Held: Insufficient evidence of intentional representation or substantial, prejudicial reliance; estoppel fails |
| Whether defendants proved prejudice sufficient to bar enforcement | Lyon: Prejudice must be substantial (e.g., wasted, irreplaceable investment) | Defendants: Investments (pole barn and additions, business operations) justify estoppel | Held: Claimed expenditures inadequate to show the kind/amount of prejudice required; enforcement permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath Twp v Sall, 442 Mich 434 (1993) (defines prior nonconforming use as a vested right protecting lawful preexisting uses)
- Oliphant v Franzo, 381 Mich 630 (1968) (government inaction for many years creating substantial investments and development may support estoppel)
- Pittsfield Twp v Malcolm, 375 Mich 135 (1965) (official permitting and significant expenditures can estop later enforcement)
- City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90 (1997) (delay alone without proof of prejudicial reliance insufficient for estoppel or laches)
- West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (2003) (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Zaher v Miotke, 300 Mich App 132 (2013) (de novo review of summary disposition)