Maple Grove Township v. Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain Board
298 Mich. App. 200
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are five townships appealing a trial court order granting summary disposition for the Drain Board in a Drain Code proceeding.
- Albee Township filed a petition in 2010 seeking maintenance/improvement of the Misteguay Creek Intercounty Drain; a practicability hearing determined the project practicable.
- A necessity hearing was scheduled for public-health-related determination, but attendance caused a postponement due to fire marshal limits.
- Plaintiffs sued for superintending control, claiming the petition was deficient and that a second practicability hearing was required after the district expansion and cost increase.
- Drain Board moved for summary disposition arguing sole-petition authority under MCL 280.192, and that issues about practicability and land addition did not require separate hearings.
- Trial court granted summary disposition, concluding Albee Township’s petition conferred jurisdiction and that no extra hearings were required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Albee's petition confer jurisdiction under MCL 280.192? | Petition failed under MCL 280.121/192 for form and signing requirements. | Petition valid under MCL 280.192 allowing single township initiation. | Petition conferred jurisdiction; MCL 280.192 applicable. |
| Are MCL 280.196(4)-(5) inapplicable due to the petition? | Costs exceed per-mile cap without petition; thus improper. | petition controls; these subsections do not apply when a petition exists. | Inapplicable; petition exists. |
| Must a second practicability hearing occur after district expansion and cost increase? | Larger district and higher cost require new practicability hearing. | Post-practicability survey determines scope; no second practicability hearing required. | No second practicability hearing required. |
| Must a land-addition hearing occur before a necessity hearing? | Hearing to add land must precede necessity hearing. | Board of determination need not precede necessity hearing; statutes permit sequence as interpreted. | Necessity hearing may precede land-addition determination; no error in sequencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Smith, 290 Mich App 678 (2010) (provides standard for de novo review of summary dispositions)
- Spiek v. Dep’t of Transp., 456 Mich 331 (1998) (tests for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8))
- Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich App 618 (2004) (standard for reviewing documentary evidence on summary disposition)
- Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 292 Mich App 359 (2011) (statutory interpretation—goal is to ascertain legislative intent)
- Mich Electric Coop Ass’n v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 267 Mich App 608 (2005) (in pari materia doctrine; read statutes together)
- Grubb Creek Action Comm. v. Shiawassee Co. Drain Comm’r, 218 Mich App 665 (1996) (board of determination distinguishes necessity from selection of solution)
- Department of Environmental Quality v. Worth Twp., 491 Mich 227 (2012) (statutory interpretation; ensure meaningful reading of terms)
- Detroit v. Detroit Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 273 Mich App 260 (2006) (statutory interpretation and plain-language approach)