Township of Fraser v. Harvey Haney
368834
Mich. Ct. App.Jul 9, 2025Background
- Harvey Haney, defendant, purchased mostly commercial-zoned land in Fraser Township in 1986 and began pig farming on the property around 2006.
- Fraser Township sought injunctive relief to abate Haney’s piggery as a nuisance under its zoning ordinance, arguing livestock farming was never a permitted use.
- Haney defended that the Right to Farm Act (RTFA) protected his operation and invoked laches and equitable estoppel due to the township’s alleged delay and representations.
- The trial court ruled for the Township, finding Haney’s RTFA defense unavailable on nonretroactivity grounds and rejecting laches and estoppel, prompting Haney’s appeal.
- The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in its legal interpretation of the RTFA but required further factual findings to resolve the RTFA defense, vacating and remanding the judgment.
- The court upheld dismissal of Haney’s laches and equitable estoppel defenses, deferring to the trial court’s factual and credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTFA defense applies retroactively | Zoning ordinance predates RTFA amendment; | RTFA protects current farm operations regardless of | RTFA defense not barred; remanded for factual findings on |
| amendment can't invalidate earlier ordinance | ordinance date; 2000 amendment applies prospectively | compliance with GAAMPs | |
| Sufficiency of farm as a "farm operation" | Not argued against; contended use was unlawful | Pig operation is for commercial production | Haney had a "farm operation" under the RTFA |
| Compliance with GAAMPs (Right to Farm Defense) | Haney failed to prove compliance | Sufficient evidence offered | Remanded for trial court to make findings |
| Laches — unreasonable enforcement delay | Township acted promptly upon actual notice | Township delayed enforcement, causing prejudice | No error; township acted diligently |
| Equitable estoppel due to prior township conduct | No official or formal permission granted | Permission granted by township supervisor; reliance | No error; no exceptional circumstances or formal approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Northville Twp v. Coyne, 170 Mich App 446 (RTFA intended to protect farmers from local ordinances and nuisance suits)
- Lima Twp v. Bateson, 302 Mich App 483 (discusses the burdens and standards under the RTFA for defending agricultural operations)
- Twp of Williamstown v. Sandalwood Ranch, LLC, 325 Mich App 541 (zoning ordinances can be preempted by RTFA if GAAMPs are satisfied)
- Chapdelaine v. Sochocki, 247 Mich App 167 (sets standards of review for factual and legal conclusions in bench trials)
- Twp of Yankee Springs v. Fox, 264 Mich App 604 (laches can bar abatement actions only upon showing unreasonable delay and prejudice)
- Reaume v. Twp of Spring Lake, 328 Mich App 321 (municipality may be estopped from ordinance enforcement only in exceptional circumstances)