Township of Imlay v. Sharon Schutte
367304
Mich. Ct. App.May 21, 2025Background
- Defendant, Sharon Schutte, owned and bred Shetland Sheepdogs and moved to Imlay Township in 2003 after being told there were no limits on dog ownership.
- In 2016, after Animal Control advised Schutte to seek a kennel license, she tried to gain approval from the Township but was ultimately told no such private kennel provision existed in R-1 zoning.
- In 2009, Imlay Township enacted an ordinance limiting residential properties to four dogs; Schutte continued keeping more than that number.
- In 2022, after receiving a warning letter about her noncompliance, the Township filed suit for injunctive relief to enforce the ordinance.
- Schutte responded without raising affirmative defenses, instead asserting a counterclaim based on an alleged 2016 agreement with the Township allowing her up to 20 dogs until 2026.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the Township, finding Schutte failed to properly plead any affirmative defenses and effectively admitted to violating the ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of 2009 zoning ordinance | Schutte had more than 4 dogs, violating § 4.13 | Ordinance postdated her ownership; claimed right to continue (nonconforming use) | Nonconforming use is an affirmative defense; waived by not pleading |
| Laches defense due to enforcement delay | Delay alone is not enough; no prejudice shown | Laches should bar enforcement after years of delay | Laches is an affirmative defense and was waived by not pleading |
| Existence of a binding agreement (equitable estoppel) | No evidence of binding agreement or reliance | Township agreed to limit of 20 dogs until 2026 | No binding agreement; estoppel requires exceptional circumstances, not shown |
| Admission of ordinance violation through pleadings | Defendant's form of answer is deemed an admission | "Neither Admit or Deny" is sufficient to contest | Failure to properly deny is deemed an admission under court rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Odom v. Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (summarizes the standard of review for decisions on summary disposition)
- BC Tile & Marble Co, Inc. v. Multi Building Co, Inc., 288 Mich App 576 (explains MCR 2.116(C)(9) standard)
- Slater v. Ann Arbor Pub Sch Bd of Ed, 250 Mich App 419 (describes consequence of failing to plead a valid defense)
- Stanke v. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 200 Mich App 307 (defines affirmative defenses under Michigan law)
- Harris v. Vernier, 242 Mich App 306 (failure to raise affirmative defense results in waiver)
- Heath Twp v. Sall, 442 Mich 434 (nature and protection of nonconforming uses)
- White Lake Twp v. Lustig, 10 Mich App 665 (nonconforming use is an affirmative defense)
- Lothian v. Detroit, 414 Mich 160 (laches is an affirmative defense)
- Hughes v. Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50 (requirements for equitable estoppel against zoning authorities)