Alleged zoning violation; Principle that use of land or a dwelling, building, or structure in violation of a zoning ordinance is a nuisance per se; MCL 125.3407; Special damages; Towne v Harr; Interpretation of a zoning ordinance; Brandon Charter Twp v Tippett; “Residence”; Eager v Peasley; “Tourist home”; Exclusions & permissions; Pittsfield Twp v Malcom; Independence Twp v Skibowski

The court held that defendant was violating the township zoning ordinance by operating a tourist home and thus, plaintiffs were entitled to summary disposition of their nuisance per se claim. Plaintiffs claimed defendant was conducting rental activity on its property in violation of the township zoning ordinance. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by denying their motion for summary disposition of their nuisance per se claim. It agreed with the township that defendant’s use of the house met the definition of a “tourist home,” which is not permitted in that district. It is a “dwelling that is being rented overnight to transient guests for compensation.” And defendant was “undoubtedly providing overnight accommodations as the renters [we]re given exclusive occupation of the house along with numerous other amenities such as the use of the boats on the property.” Reversed and remanded.