Township of Lockport v. City of Three Rivers, 331711

The City purchased ~80 acres from private owners on Feb 1, 2016 and adopted an annexation resolution Feb 2, 2016; the Township sued Feb 3, 2016 to block annexation.
In 2006 the private owners and the Township executed a permanent, non-exclusive 20-foot easement to install and maintain an underground water transmission line across the parcel; the line is in place and in continuous use.
The trial court denied the Township’s preliminary injunction and granted the City summary disposition, concluding the land was “vacant” under MCL 117.9(8), which permits simplified annexation of city-owned park or vacant township property.
The Township appealed, arguing the parcel is not vacant because it is being used (by the water transmission line).
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and applied the ordinary meaning of “vacant” as developed in prior decisions.

Issue	Township’s Argument	City’s Argument	Held
Whether the parcel is "vacant" under MCL 117.9(8)	Parcel is not vacant because it is put to continuous use by a permanent underground water transmission line and easement	Parcel is vacant: the water line is buried (not an above-ground use), occupies de minimis area, and easement is non‑exclusive	Not vacant: “vacant” means land "not put to use;" an underground, permanent water transmission line places the property in continuous use, so MCL 117.9(8) does not apply

Bernardoni v. Saginaw, 499 Mich 470 (2016) (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 456 Mich 395 (1998) (view evidence in favor of nonmoving party on C(10) motion)
Yono v. Dep’t of Transp., 499 Mich 636 (2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Wyandotte Electric Supply Co. v. Electrical Tech. Sys., Inc., 499 Mich 127 (2016) (enforce clear statutory language as written)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 499 Mich 74 (2016) (no judicial construction where statute is unambiguous)
Charter Twp. of Pittsfield v. Ann Arbor, 86 Mich App 229 (1978) (defined "vacant" land as land "not put to use")
Charter Twp. of Pittsfield v. Saline, 103 Mich App 99 (1981) (seasonal agricultural use held "vacant" under MCL 117.9(8))
Rudolph Steiner Sch. of Ann Arbor v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 237 Mich App 721 (1999) (discusses municipal annexation under MCL 117.9(8))
Rutland Twp. v. Hastings, 413 Mich 560 (1982) (Supreme Court reference to trial factfinding on vacancy)
Wheatfield Twp. v. Williamston, 184 Mich App 745 (1990) (agricultural use alone does not automatically prevent finding of vacancy)