Township of Worth v. Slavko Dimoski, 332825

Worth Township, ordered by the Michigan DEQ to stop discharging raw sewage, sought to acquire three parcels owned by the Dimovskis to build a sewer lagoon and offered $256,000 based on an appraisal by Dan Brown; defendants refused.
Township filed a condemnation action seeking taking and entry of just compensation for $256,000; defendants contested only the amount of compensation and submitted their own appraisal valuing the property at $234,000.
Plaintiff moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), (9), and (10), attaching both appraisals and offering to pay the higher appraisal amount; defendants responded with a $360,000 counter-offer.
At the initial hearing the court continued the motion two weeks for defendants to supplement; defendants obtained an affidavit from their appraiser, Hager, claiming his original appraisal undervalued the parcels but did not provide a new valuation then.
The trial court granted summary disposition (treated as C(10)) and entered judgment for $256,000; defendants later submitted a new appraisal valuing the parcels separately at $288,000, but the trial court denied relief from judgment/reconsideration. Appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition was premature because discovery was incomplete	Motion was proper; both appraisals were available and plaintiff offered the higher amount, so no further discovery would likely change material facts	Court cut off discovery prematurely and defendants needed time to prepare a new appraisal and conduct discovery	Trial court did not err; defendants had ample time and additional discovery was unlikely to produce material evidence to defeat summary disposition
Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to just compensation	Supplying both appraisals and agreeing to pay the higher appraisal established no factual dispute about compensation	Hager’s affidavit and later appraisal showed the initial valuations were faulty and that separate residential valuation would yield a higher amount	No genuine factual dispute; Hager’s affidavit was speculative and did not meaningfully challenge Brown’s appraisal or present admissible contradictory valuation at the time of the motion

Coblentz v. Novi, 475 Mich. 558 (2006) (plaintiff bears initial burden; nonmoving party must produce evidentiary materials to show a factual dispute)
Liparoto Constr., Inc. v. Gen. Shale Brick, Inc., 284 Mich. App. 25 (2009) (summary-disposition prematurity when further discovery is unlikely to produce facts supporting the nonmovant)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (speculation and conjecture insufficient to defeat summary disposition)
Mich. Dep’t of Transp. v. Tomkins, 481 Mich. 184 (2008) (just compensation should neither enrich the owner nor the public; aim is to restore owner to position as if land not taken)
Kemerko Clawson, LLC v. RXIV Inc., 269 Mich. App. 347 (2005) (motions for summary disposition may be filed at any time, subject to court’s scheduling discretion)