888 N.W.2d 267
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Property at issue: a 1914 railroad right-of-way (ROW) in Grand Rapids conveyed to Grand Trunk and later to Central Michigan Railway (CMR); CMR used it until rail service ceased in 2004 and sought STB abandonment to convert it to a trail.
- In November 2011 a salvage crew removed tracks/ties from segments of the ROW; plaintiff Tennine alleged soil/contamination was tracked onto its adjacent property and that hazardous substances were released or threatened to be released.
- Tennine served the required NREPA notice and sued defendants (including CMR and Boardwalk entities) under Part 201 of the NREPA, and for trespass and nuisance.
- The trial court granted summary disposition to defendants; it found Tennine lacked standing under the NREPA to sue CMR. Tennine appealed (Docket No. 323257).
- The trial court also granted summary disposition to the Boardwalk defendants and later awarded them actual costs and attorney fees under MCR 2.405 (offer of judgment); Tennine appealed that fee award (Docket No. 324480).
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals, reversed the standing dismissal as to CMR, and affirmed the award of costs/fees to the Boardwalk defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporation (Tennine) has standing under Part 201 (MCL 324.20135) to sue for harms to health or enjoyment of the environment | Tennine argued it is a "person" under the statute and alleged its enjoyment/health were or may be adversely affected by releases from the ROW, so it has standing | CMR argued Tennine (a corporation) lacks standing under controlling precedent (Flanders) because corporations cannot be persons who suffer "health or enjoyment" harms for citizen suits | Court held Tennine has standing: statute defines "person" to include corporations and "enjoyment" includes use/possession of property, so a corporation can sue when its enjoyment of the environment may be adversely affected; reversed summary disposition as to CMR |
| Whether Tennine was limited to recovery of remediation costs (and thus lacked NREPA standing) | Tennine argued it sought injunctive and environmental relief (not just remediation costs) alleging threatened releases harmed use/enjoyment | CMR relied on Flanders to say plaintiff only sought cost recovery and thus lacked citizen-suit standing | Court distinguished Flanders: that plaintiff sought only remediation cost recovery; Tennine alleged adverse effects on enjoyment/health and sought appropriate NREPA relief, so Flanders did not control |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by awarding Boardwalk defendants costs/attorney fees under MCR 2.405 despite Tennine invoking the "interest of justice" exception | Tennine argued the offers were de minimis/gamesmanship and defendants withheld ownership documents, making refusal reasonable and invoking the exception | Boardwalk defendants argued offers were legitimate settlement attempts, Tennine produced no evidence of withheld documents or motions to compel, and refusal was not an unusual circumstance | Court affirmed: interest of justice exception is narrow; no unusual circumstances (gamesmanship or public-interest litigation) shown; award of actual costs and attorney fees upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Manuel v. Gill, 481 Mich 637 (standing presents a question of law)
- Flanders Indus., Inc. v. Michigan, 203 Mich App 15 (corporation lacked standing where plaintiff sought only remediation costs)
- Krusac v. Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc., 497 Mich 251 (statutory interpretation: clear definitions control)
- 1031 Lapeer LLC v. Rice, 290 Mich App 225 (citizens-suit standing under Part 201 requires environmental/injunctive focus)
- Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Sys., 263 Mich App 364 (MCR 2.405 interest-of-justice exception is narrow; factors that are common do not suffice)
- AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497 (evaluating alleged gamesmanship and reasonableness under offer-of-judgment rule)