874 N.W.2d 419
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeremiah Hudson operated a family farm (Sweet Peas Farms) on residentially zoned property in Williamstown Township and kept various animals; township zoning prohibited such animals and farming on R-1 property.
- The Township sued alleging nuisance per se for violation of local zoning and sought injunctive relief; Hudson invoked the Michigan Right to Farm Act (RTFA) as an affirmative defense, claiming RTFA preemption and GAAMP compliance.
- MDARD conducted a Right to Farm investigation (May–Aug 2013). Investigator Wayne Whitman identified manure/runoff, bare-soil/erosion, and a potential discharge risk from a storm grate, and repeatedly requested revised manure management plans and soil tests; MDARD had not received documentation establishing compliance by Aug 23, 2013.
- Hudson presented primarily his wife’s testimony claiming later remedial steps and MAEAP contact; the trial court found that testimony not credible and that Hudson failed to show compliance with applicable GAAMPs (principally the Manure Management Manual).
- The trial court granted the Township’s motion for involuntary dismissal (MCR 2.504[B][2]) and issued an injunction enjoining the farming activities; Hudson appealed but continued farming and was later held in contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township) | Defendant's Argument (Hudson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RTFA preempts township zoning and protects Hudson from nuisance claim | RTFA does not apply because Hudson failed to comply with applicable GAAMPs; local zoning enforcement is proper | RTFA preempts local zoning and shields the farm because it is a commercial farm that complies (or cured noncompliance) with GAAMPs/MAEAP | RTFA protection requires compliance with applicable GAAMPs; Hudson failed to prove compliance, so RTFA defense fails |
| Whether the Manure Management GAAMP applied and was complied with | MDARD evidence shows manure/runoff risks and lack of documentation of GAAMP compliance | Hudson claims remedial measures after MDARD letters satisfied the Manure Manual | Court found MDARD’s investigation and letters established noncompliance; Hudson’s testimony lacked credibility, so noncompliance proven |
| Proper procedural/standards question: appropriate standard of review for dismissal | Township treated and prevailed under involuntary dismissal standard; trial court may weigh credibility | Hudson argued court should have viewed evidence in his favor as on summary disposition | Court treated the matter under MCR 2.504(B)(2) (involuntary dismissal); credibility determinations and factfinding were appropriate and reviewed for clear error |
| Whether other GAAMP manuals (Site Selection, Animal Care) were applicable and proven noncompliant | Trial court referenced those manuals as not satisfied (but MDARD investigation focused on Manure Manual) | Hudson argues the court erred because MDARD only investigated manure issues and he did not admit other manuals applied | Appellate court held there was no evidence MDARD investigated other manuals; trial court’s findings regarding those manuals were unsupported, but failure on Manure Manual alone sufficed to deny RTFA protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Scholma v. Ottawa Co. Rd. Comm., 303 Mich. App. 12 (discusses RTFA purpose and GAAMP compliance requirement)
- Lima Twp. v. Bateson, 302 Mich. App. 483 (RTFA affirmative defense allocation and elements)
- Webb v. Smith (After Remand), 204 Mich. App. 564 (standard of review for injunction issuance and factual findings)
- McManamon v. Bedford Charter Twp., 256 Mich. App. 603 (MCR 2.116(C)(8) pleadings-only standard)
- Marderosian v. Stroh Brewery Co., 123 Mich. App. 719 (involuntary dismissal standard: trial judge weighs evidence and credibility)
- Wilhams v. Williams, 214 Mich. App. 391 (credibility and corroboration of testimonial evidence)