Wiggins v. City of Burton, 291 Mich. App. 532

Maplewood Meadows No. 1 plat encumbers Wiggins parcel with a private storm-detention easement; no instrument beyond the plat; easement language limits use to storm detention.
Heckman and Mahler parcels abut Wiggins; drainage project installed drains and a pipe connecting to the Wiggins easement to carry waters away from Heckman/Mahler toward Wiggins.
City contracted with Doan Enterprises to install the drainage system in 2007-2008; drainage allegedly redirected surface water onto the Wiggins property.
Wiggins filed a 2008 five-count complaint seeking quiet title, declaratory relief, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation against City, Mahlers, Heckmans, and Doan Enterprises; later supplemental complaint asserted trespass by Heckmans and Mahlers.
Circuit Court granted partial summary disposition for Mahlers/Heckmans on some claims, dismissed City claims without prejudice under MCL 280.75, and reserved issues on immunity and takings; no final resolution on all tort claims.
Appellate court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion, holding the drainage easement did not authorize the drain, trespass liability against Heckmans/Mahlers; rejected Drain Code as basis to dispose of claims against City; remanded for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, and potential inverse condemnation proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the drain constitutes trespass and nuisance.	Wiggins: drain installation exceeds easement scope (trespass); nuisance not applicable.	Heckmans/Mahlers: no direct entry; authorization to City; not trespass/nuisance.	Trespass established; nuisance not; remand for injunction and damages.
Whether increased flow of water constitutes trespass.	Increased flow to Wiggins is an unlawful encumbrance.	Flow may be within natural servitude; need factual showing.	Issue of material fact; remand to determine if flow increased beyond natural servitude; potential additional trespass.
Whether declaratory relief against Heckmans/Mahlers is proper.	Declaratory relief should resolve scope of easement and liability.	Declaratory relief improperly pleaded as separate claim.	Remand to enter appropriate declaratory relief clarifying scope and trespass liability.
Whether Drain Code § 280.75 applies to this case against the City.	Drain Code procedures should govern; City bypassed process.	Statute applies to proposed drains, not existing drains; procedures not triggered here.	Drain Code § 280.75 not applicable; remand to address injunction removing drain; allow future reestablishment under proper process.

Schmidt v Eger, 94 Mich App 728 (Mich. App. 1980) (easement scope and drainage may exceed existing easements if not contemplated by plat)
Kratze v Indep Order of Oddfellows, Garden City Lodge, 190 Mich App 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (co-trespassers liable for trespass when they authorize or ratify trespass)
Soergel v Preston, 141 Mich App 585 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (injunctions appropriate for permanent or continuing trespass to easement)
Schadewald v Brulé, 225 Mich App 26 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (continued use of an easement beyond its scope may be a continuing trespass; injunction)
Adams v Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich App 51 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (trespass vs nuisance: intrusion onto land vs use/injury)
Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 2002) (no trespass-nuisance exception to governmental immunity)
Hinojosa v Dept. of Natural Resources, 263 Mich App 537 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (general takings framework for inverse condemnation)
Jackson Co Drain Comm’r v Village of Stockbridge, 270 Mich App 273 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (whether immunity bars monetary relief vs equitable relief)
Reed v Soltys, 106 Mich App 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981) (natural servitude and flow of surface water)