Township of Rose v. Devoted Friends Animal Society
356599
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 21, 2022Background
- Devoted Friends Animal Society (nonprofit) and board member Melissa Borden purchased property in Rose Township in May 2019 and began housing roughly 60–75 dogs without township special‑use approval. Defendants also kept other animals.
- Borden testified she spoke with Rose Township zoning administrator David Plewes after purchase; Plewes allegedly said to consult Oakland County and suggested individual dog licensing as an option. Borden said Plewes was "clueless" and would talk to the county.
- Plewes testified he first learned of the operation after neighbor complaints in August 2019, told defendants they needed special‑land‑use approval and that the county required licensing. Defendants admit they first brought animals to the property on June 8, 2019.
- Rose Township issued zoning violation notices and sued, seeking (among other relief) an injunction to stop additional dogs. The trial court barred receiving new dogs but denied other preliminary relief.
- Plaintiff moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted summary disposition for Rose Township, finding defendants’ equitable‑estoppel defense untenable as a matter of law (reliance was unjustified and exceptional circumstances were lacking).
- Defendants appealed solely contesting the trial court’s rejection of equitable estoppel; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may invoke equitable estoppel to bar enforcement of the zoning ordinance | Rose Twp: defendants cannot show justifiable/reasonable reliance on township representations or the exceptional circumstances required to estop a municipality | Defendants: Plewes’ statements and defendants’ expenditures and property improvements justified reliance and create exceptional circumstances to estop enforcement | Court held no genuine issue of material fact: reliance was unjustified and exceptional circumstances were absent; estoppel fails |
| Whether defendants’ claimed reliance was a factual question precluding summary disposition | Rose Twp: record shows Borden thought Plewes was "clueless," county gave direction, and dogs were moved before reliance—so no reasonable reliance exists | Defendants: reasonableness of reliance is a factual issue for the factfinder and summary disposition was premature | Court held reasonableness can be resolved on summary disposition here because evidence, viewed in plaintiffs’ favor, cannot support justifiable reliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyon Charter Twp v Petty, 317 Mich App 482 (discusses equitable estoppel in zoning and lists elements)
- Pittsfield Twp v Malcolm, 375 Mich 135 (explains "exceptional circumstances" may justify estoppel of a municipality)
- Jourden v Wyoming Twp, 358 Mich 496 (mere misinformation and some expenditure do not suffice to estop a municipality)
- White Lake Twp v Amos, 371 Mich 693 (similar rule that municipality is not estopped by mistaken advice alone)
- Fass v City of Highland Park, 326 Mich 19 (issuance of unlawful permits does not necessarily permit reliance)
- Field v Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (distinguishes "justifiable" from "reasonable" reliance; court treats them as synonymous here)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (summary disposition standard for evaluating factual sufficiency)
- Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc, 500 Mich 1 (movant's burden and nonmovant's response under MCR 2.116(C)(10))