John Buggs v. Department of Natural Resources
329782
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- In Jan 2013 Encana obtained PSC approval to build natural-gas pipelines across state land; DNR granted two easements (Beaver Creek and Garfield) in Feb and June 2013; pipelines were built and operational by Sept 2013.
- Plaintiffs Buggs and Bonamie (Crawford County landowners) challenged environmental impacts, were denied intervention at the PSC, and successfully vacated the PSC orders in a prior appeal for MEPA deficiencies; remand proceedings followed.
- While PSC proceedings were pending, plaintiffs sued the DNR in Court of Claims seeking mandamus and an injunction to revoke the easements, alleging (1) easement widths violated DNR policy, (2) a typographical alteration/Statute of Frauds problem, (3) Encana breached easements by excavating beyond boundaries and failing to preserve/report two suspected protected birds, and (4) easements terminated for nonuse within two years.
- DNR moved for summary disposition arguing plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of intent to sue the state and that DNR acted within its discretionary authority under MCL 324.2129 to set easement terms.
- Court of Claims granted summary disposition for defendants, finding plaintiffs failed to show a clear, ministerial duty by DNR to revoke easements and denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNR had a ministerial duty to revoke easements because easement widths exceeded DNR-recommended 20 ft | Easements exceeded DNR policy and thus were improper | DNR has statutory authority to set terms and may exceed recommended widths for safety; decision is discretionary | Held for DNR: no clear ministerial duty to revoke; discretionary authority permitted wider easements |
| Whether correction of a typographical error/alteration violated Statute of Frauds or required revocation | The Beaver Creek easement was improperly altered and thus invalid | The correction was a mutual, written modification; conveyance remained in writing | Held for DNR: correction was permissible; no Statute of Frauds violation |
| Whether Encana’s alleged failure to preserve/report two dead, suspected protected birds required DNR to revoke easements | Encana’s failure to preserve/report breached easement duties and DNR should pursue rescission | DNR lacked a clear, non-discretionary duty to sue or revoke based on an unverified lay report | Held for DNR: plaintiffs failed to show a clear legal duty to compel revocation |
| Whether easements terminated for nonuse because PSC approval was vacated and remand happened after two years | Plaintiffs: use was not "lawful" within two years because PSC orders were vacated; thus easements terminated | DNR: easements were used for their granted purpose within two years; paragraph 22 does not condition termination on later legality determinations | Held for DNR: easements were used within two years; termination not established |
| Whether Court of Claims abused discretion by denying leave to amend complaint | Plaintiffs: justice required amendment to cure defects | DNR: amendment would be futile; Court of Claims found defects not curable | Held for DNR: denial not an abuse of discretion; issue effectively abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dep’t of Corrections, 468 Mich. 646 (ministerial duty and mandamus standard)
- Casco Twp. v. Secretary of State, 472 Mich. 566 (mandamus elements)
- Lickfeldt v. Dep’t of Corrections, 247 Mich. App. 299 (ministerial duty requirement for mandamus)
- Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. (On Remand), 293 Mich. App. 506 (scope of duty is question of law)
- Port Huron Ed. Ass’n v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist., 452 Mich. 309 (parties may agree to alter contracts)
- Bronson Methodist Hosp. v. Mich. Assigned Claims Facility, 298 Mich. App. 192 (party must present legal support for asserted positions)
- Weymers v. Khera, 454 Mich. 639 (standard of review for amendment decisions)
- Ben P. Fyke & Sons v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649 (factors for denying amendment)
- PIC Maint., Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 293 Mich. App. 403 (issue abandonment for failure to argue merits)