Citizens for Higgins Lake Legal Levels v. Roscommon Bd of Comm'rs
988 N.W.2d 841
Mich. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 1982 the Roscommon Circuit Court fixed Higgins Lake "normal levels": 1,154.11 ft (summer) and 1,153.61 ft (winter). Plaintiffs are a nonprofit and riparian property owners who sued to enforce the summer level.
- Plaintiffs alleged Roscommon County Board of Commissioners (the County) repeatedly failed to maintain the court-ordered summer level (data showed extended below-level readings in 2016–2018). They sought a writ of mandamus compelling the County to maintain the level and implement recommendations from a 2010 Spicer Group engineering report.
- Spicer Group and a later ecohydrological study concluded post-2007 alterations increased summertime outflows and recommended structural/operational changes; EGLE holds a 2007 permit for the lake control structure (LCS) and the permit states it does not eliminate managing the lake per the court order.
- EGLE successfully moved to intervene; plaintiffs moved to dismiss EGLE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the trial court denied that motion.
- The trial court granted the County’s motion for summary disposition, concluding the court order and statutes left discretion on operation/maintenance and that mandamus was not available to compel the County to adopt Spicer’s recommendations.
- On appeal the panel reversed in part and affirmed in part: it held the County has a clear legal duty to maintain the court-ordered summer level and that mandamus is available to enforce that duty (method of compliance remains discretionary); it affirmed denial of dismissal of EGLE and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County has a clear legal duty to maintain the court-ordered summer lake level (1,154.11 ft) | The court order and NREPA require the County to maintain the summer level; the County failed to do so for years. | The court order and statute allow seasonal and practical variation; the County is not required to hit the exact elevation daily. | The Court held the County has a clear, statutory duty to maintain the court-ordered summer level; deviations require court-authorized proceedings. |
| Whether the duty to maintain the lake level is ministerial (writ of mandamus available) | The duty to maintain the established elevation is ministerial; plaintiffs may seek mandamus to compel performance even if method is discretionary. | The manner of maintaining levels (operational changes) is discretionary, so mandamus cannot compel specific actions like adopting Spicer recommendations. | The Court held the duty to maintain the level is ministerial (the method is discretionary), so mandamus can be sought to compel maintenance of the set level. |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10) was proper | Plaintiffs argued their pleadings and the Spicer report created genuine issues of fact and stated a mandamus claim. | County argued plaintiffs failed to state a claim and there was no breach because variations are permitted or unavoidable. | The Court reversed summary disposition: plaintiffs adequately pleaded mandamus elements and evidence raised genuine issues for further proceedings. |
| Whether EGLE should have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argued EGLE was misjoined/intervenor and the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over suits against state agencies. | EGLE argued it had statutory interest and a right to intervene; the action is against the County, not an extraordinary writ against EGLE. | The Court affirmed denial of EGLE’s dismissal: circuit court had jurisdiction because the suit sought mandamus against the County and EGLE’s intervention did not convert the action into a claim against the State. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anson v. Barry County Drain Comm’r, 210 Mich. App. 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (court order determining a lake’s normal level remains in effect and cannot be departed from absent proper proceedings)
- Glen Lake–Crystal River Watershed Riparians v. Glen Lake Ass’n, 264 Mich. App. 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (court’s normal-level determinations focus on environmental and recreational benefits and may account for seasonal variation)
- Younkin v. Zimmer, 497 Mich. 7 (Mich. 2014) (standards of review for mandamus relief; writ issuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Berry v. Garrett, 316 Mich. App. 37 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (definition of a ministerial act for mandamus: duty prescribed with such precision that no discretion remains)
- Dextrom v. Wexford County, 287 Mich. App. 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (standards governing summary-disposition review)
- Bailey v. Schaaf, 494 Mich. 595 (Mich. 2013) (pleading standards: accept factual allegations as true on a (C)(8) motion)