Lima Twp v. Bateson
302 Mich. App. 483
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gough purchased ~30 acres zoned AG-1; Lima Township sued alleging commercial use, storage of commercial vehicles/equipment, and nuisance per the township zoning ordinance. Gough/Bateson claimed they were preparing a tree farm (permitted) and sought declaratory relief; plaintiffs later dismissed that complaint by stipulation.
- Appellants moved for summary disposition arguing their activities were agricultural and protected by Michigan’s Right to Farm Act (RTFA); Lima opposed and sought injunctive relief and an amended complaint alleging excavation without a special-use permit.
- A four-day evidentiary hearing developed conflicting facts: appellants planted several hundred trees, improved driveway and grading, stored heavy equipment and cranes, removed some soil/topsoil, and planned a farm market and irrigation pond; neighbors and township witnesses testified to heavy truck traffic and large quantities of material removal.
- Michigan Dept. of Agriculture Right to Farm program manager inspected and testified that trees and irrigation ponds can be farm products/activities under the RTFA but could not definitively say whether the site’s activities were agricultural or whether the equipment was used for farm production.
- The trial court denied appellants’ motions, granted Lima summary disposition and injunctive relief ordering cessation of soil removal and removal/limitation of heavy equipment and commercial vehicles; appellants appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes on summary disposition, misapplied the RTFA burden/analysis, and erroneously excluded rebuttal testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly granted summary disposition to Lima after evidentiary hearing | Lima: evidence showed non-farm commercial/excavation activity violating LTZO and creating nuisance; summary disposition and injunction appropriate | Bateson/Gough: disputed facts (tree planting, farm preparation) created genuine issues precluding summary disposition | Reversed: court may not resolve credibility/factual disputes on motion for summary disposition; genuine issues required findings at trial/remand |
| Who bears burden and standard under the RTFA | Lima: RTFA not applicable; burden unclear | Appellants: RTFA protects their activity; burden should favor farmers | Held: RTFA is an affirmative defense; party asserting it (defendant/farmer) bears burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence |
| Whether activities qualify as "farm"/"farm operation" and require GAAMP compliance | Lima: operations were non-farm commercial uses and equipment storage unrelated to commercial farm production | Appellants: trees are "farm products," equipment and site work were incidental/necessary to farm operations and GAAMPs could be met | Held: Material factual disputes existed about commercial production intent and nexus of alleged nuisances to tree production; trial court must weigh evidence and make findings; if farm/operation proven, appellants must also prove GAAMP compliance by a preponderance |
| Exclusion of rebuttal expert testimony (Pesko) | Lima: testimony not disclosed in discovery and not proper rebuttal | Appellants: Pesko would rebut township evidence about amount/type of material removed (counter Lima’s 500-truck estimate) | Held: Trial court abused discretion by excluding Pesko as non-rebuttal; his proffered testimony could undercut Lima’s evidence and should be considered on remand |
| Equal protection/class-of-one claim | Appellants: township singled them out inconsistently versus other landowners | Lima: no similarly situated comparators shown | Held: Reversed claim — appellants failed to show similarly situated comparators; no equal protection or due process violation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich 153 (court may not assess credibility or resolve factual disputes on a motion for summary disposition)
- Travis v. Preston, 249 Mich App 338 (Right to Farm Act can preempt local zoning; farm operations protected if they meet RTFA requirements)
- Shelby Charter Twp. v. Papesh, 267 Mich App 92 (definition of commercial production and RTFA applicability)
- Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289 (statutory construction: focus on plain language to determine legislative intent)
- In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist., 296 Mich App 214 (trial court abuses discretion when it makes legal errors)
- Winiemko v. Valenti, 203 Mich App 411 (purpose and scope of rebuttal testimony)