Huron Mountain Club v. Marquette County Road Commission
303 Mich. App. 312
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Huron Mountain Club (HMC) owns all land abutting a portion of County Road KK, including a bridge over the Salmon Trout River; HMC sought abandonment so title would vest in it.
- Marquette County Road Commission (Road Commission) reduced bridge load limits, suggested HMC could repair or obtain ownership; HMC later sought abandonment.
- HMC filed a petition on January 12, 2009, asserting it owned all abutting land; the petition contained only HMC’s signature.
- Road Commission held a hearing, voted to abandon on February 16, 2009, published a resolution, then later (after public objections) declared the prior abandonment defective and set to redo procedures.
- HMC sued for declaratory/injunctive relief, quiet title, takings, and related claims; trial court granted summary disposition for the Road Commission, holding the abandonment was invalid for failing to comply with MCL 224.18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 224.18(4) require at least seven freeholders to sign an abandonment petition? | HMC: No — when a single owner holds all abutting land, that sole owner may petition; §18(5) allows proceeding without additional signatures. | Road Comm.: Yes — §18(4) unambiguously requires a petition by 7 or more freeholders; §18(5) only governs notice/procedure. | Court: Held §18(4) requires seven or more freeholders; §18(5) provides only an expedited procedure when all abutting owners sign. |
| Was the petition’s failure to have seven signatures a fatal defect that invalidated abandonment? | HMC: The defect is not material because the Commission held a hearing and approved abandonment; substantial compliance should suffice. | Road Comm.: The signature requirement is mandatory; lack of seven signatures is fatal under the statute. | Court: Held the lack of seven signatures was a fundamental statutory noncompliance rendering the abandonment ineffective. |
| Did the Road Commission provide required notice to township, DOT, and DNR under §18(5)? | HMC: Notice was unnecessary because hearing was not required if sole abutting owner signed. | Road Comm.: Notice was deficient because the Commission treated the petition as not meeting statutory prerequisites. | Court: Held notice requirements under §18(5) were not satisfied; the defective petition led to deficient notice. |
| Did the Road Commission adopt the statutorily required ‘‘best interest of the public’’ finding? | HMC: Implicit approval and subsequent drafting cured any deficiency. | Road Comm.: Minutes/resolution lacked the required finding; later-drafted resolution was not adopted/recorded properly. | Court: Held the minutes/resolution did not contain the mandated finding; procedure failed to comply with §18(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich. 573 (Mich. 2008) (statutory interpretation standard)
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (Mich. 2007) (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 470 Mich. 274 (Mich. 2004) (MCR 2.116(C)(10) factual sufficiency test)
- Douglas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 492 Mich. 241 (Mich. 2012) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Lakeview Commons Ltd. Partnership v. Empower Yourself LLC, 290 Mich. App. 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (consider only evidence presented to trial court on summary disposition)
- Tellin v. Forsyth Twp., 291 Mich. App. 692 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (give statutory words their plain meaning)
- Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 472 Mich. 192 (Mich. 2005) (unambiguous statutory language enforced as written)
- Ross v. Modern Mirror & Glass Co., 268 Mich. App. 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (interaction of statutes can create apparent ambiguity)
- Thompson-McCully Quarry Co. v. Berlin Charter Twp., 259 Mich. App. 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (holding on §224.18(5) procedure when all abutting owners sign)
- Ambs v. Kalamazoo Co. Rd. Comm., 255 Mich. App. 637 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (compliance with §224.18 is mandatory once abandonment proceedings are undertaken)
- Village of Bangor v. Bangor Twp., 324 Mich. 665 (Mich. 1949) (historical precedent on statutory requirements for road/bridge abandonment)