Sholberg v. Truman, 496 Mich. 1

Terri Sholberg sues Daniel Truman (owner of the horse) and title owners Robert and Marilyn Truman over a 2010 public-nuisance incident involving escaped animals on the farm.
Defendants are the fee owners of the property but allege they never possessed or controlled the farm or the animals and had no knowledge of the nuisance.
Plaintiff presents evidence of at least 30 animal elopements near the farm from 2003–2010, creating road hazards.
Trial court granted summary disposition against the Trumans; Court of Appeals reversed on the nuisance claim, prompting this Court to review liability of absentee landowners.
Court ultimately holds title owners cannot be liable where a third party in possession and control of the property created the nuisance, with the owner lacking possession/control.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether title owners can be liable for a public nuisance when not in possession	Sholberg contends owners are liable due to ownership	Trumans argue ownership alone cannot impose liability without possession/control	No liability; lack of possession/control defeats nuisance liability
Whether possession or control is a prerequisite to nuisance liability	Control or possession by owner exists via title and related interests	Only the in-possession party is liable; absentee owners liable only if they retain control	Control (possession) is required; absence of control by owners defeats liability
Whether knowledge is an element of nuisance liability for absentee landowners	Knowledge may be required to impose liability	Knowledge is not necessary; lack of knowledge supports dismissal	Knowledge is not an element; absence of knowledge supports dismissal as alternative basis
Application to absentee owners where a third party possessed and created the nuisance	Owner may be liable if they retained a right to control	Liability should attach to the party in possession who created the nuisance	Absentee owners are not liable when a third party possesses and controls the property and creates the nuisance

Merritt v Nickelson, 407 Mich 544 (1980) (co-owner liability hinges on who controls the premises)
Musser v Loon Lake Shores Ass’n, 384 Mich 616 (1971) (premises liability principles; ownership alone not dispositive in nuisance)
Wagner v Regency Inn Corp, 186 Mich App 158 (1990) (control of land required for nuisance liability; possession/conduct interplay)
Rosen v Mann, 219 Mich 687 (1922) (landlord not liable for tenant-created nuisance absent control or contract duty)
Samuelson v Cleveland Iron Mining Co, 49 Mich 164 (1882) (landlord generally not liable for nuisance created by tenant; retains duty if retaining control)
Radloff v Michigan, 116 Mich App 745 (1982) (ownership and control can give rise to liability; ownership alone not dispositive)
Gelman Sciences, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 202 Mich App 250 (1993) (ownership/control framework for nuisance liability cited by appellate courts)