Michael Wenners v. Matthew D Chisholm, 332654

Background

Plaintiffs are adjacent riparian owners on Portage Lake whose properties are separated by a narrow footpath (the "Northern Way") running to the lake; neighboring non-riparian defendants (Chisholm defendants and Shaughnessy) use the path to access a seasonal dock.
Chisholm defendants moved for summary disposition in the main case and separately sued the unknown owners of the footpath in a separate action asserting a prescriptive easement; they obtained a default judgment in the separate case against the unknown owners.
This Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the Chisholm defendants as moot after the default judgment in the unknown-owners case; the Chisholm defendants later were dismissed from the main case by consent judgment.
Shaughnessy moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing plaintiffs lacked standing because the Chisholm default judgment (and this Court’s mootness ruling) eliminated plaintiffs’ rights in the path; the trial court granted the motion solely on that basis.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court conflated mootness and standing and that they have standing to seek declaratory relief about Shaughnessy’s riparian/access/dock rights; they also sought judgment in their favor under MCR 2.116(I).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this appeal is moot	The dispute with Shaughnessy still presents live issues; relief against her remains possible	The Chisholm default judgment and this Court’s mootness ruling over the Chisholms eliminate plaintiffs’ interests in the path, making claims moot	Not moot; earlier mootness ruling as to Chisholms did not render plaintiffs’ claims against Shaughnessy moot
Whether plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory relief against Shaughnessy	Plaintiffs have a distinct, personal stake (riparian rights, interference, noise, access) requiring adjudication to guide future conduct	Plaintiffs lack standing because prior default judgment/mootness removed any legally protectable interest	Plaintiffs have standing; their interests are sufficiently particularized and present an actual controversy under MCR 2.605(A)(1)
Whether the trial court properly relied on the prior appellate mootness decision to grant summary disposition	Trial court erred to conflate mootness and standing; prior decision addressed only mootness as to Chisholms	Trial court relied on this Court’s earlier opinion to conclude lack of standing	Trial court erred; earlier opinion did not address standing and Shaughnessy was not party to the unknown-owners case
Whether judgment should have been entered for plaintiffs under MCR 2.116(I)	Plaintiffs’ affidavits show elements of prescriptive/adverse possession and they should win judgment	Defendant lacked adequate notice and opportunity to contest those factual claims; estoppel issues unresolved	Denied: factual issues insufficiently developed below and defendant lacked notice/opportunity; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Ardt v. Titan Ins. Co., 233 Mich. App. 685 (discussing de novo review of summary disposition)
Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich. App. 618 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) review)
People v. Richmond, 486 Mich. 29 (mootness doctrine; courts avoid deciding moot questions)
C D Barnes Assoc, Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC, 300 Mich. App. 389 (issue is moot when relief is impossible)
People v. Billings, 283 Mich. App. 538 (mootness principles)
Groves v. Dep’t of Corrections, 295 Mich. App. 1 (standing reviewed de novo)
Lansing Schs. Ed Ass’n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich. 349 (state standing doctrine; prudential approach)
UAW v. Central Mich. Univ. Trustees, 295 Mich. App. 486 (MCR 2.605 declaratory-judgment actual controversy standard)
Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v. Attorney General, 243 Mich. App. 43 (actual controversy and hypothetical-injury rule)
Recall Blanchard Comm. v. Secretary of State, 146 Mich. App. 117 (hypothetical injury and justiciability)