Whether the Michigan Land Division Act (LDA) preempts a township’s land-division ordinances; DeRuiter v Township of Byron; “Division”; MCL 560.102(d); Effect of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Cummins v Robinson Twp; Costs & attorney fees; MCR 1.109(E), MCR 2.625, MCL 600.2591; “Frivolous” action

The court held that the trial court did not err by ruling that defendant-township’s land-division ordinances were not preempted by the LDA or in finding that plaintiffs-property owners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. But it also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for attorney fees. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary disposition, grant of summary disposition for defendants, and denial of defendants’ motion for attorney fees. Plaintiffs attempted to change boundary lines and transfer ownership of two parcels of property. They eventually sought a declaration that the transfer of land was valid under the LDA, and for a writ of mandamus compelling the township to act on their land-division application. Defendants filed a counterclaim, which included a demand for attorney fees and costs. The trial court ordered plaintiffs to recombine the parcels to their original state. It also granted defendants’ motion for costs, but denied it as to attorney fees. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by finding the LDA did not preempt the township’s land-division ordinances, noting they “incorrectly suggest the LDA permits the ‘unrestricted transfer of lands.’ And, the statute does not preempt the ordinance.” It noted townships are “free to enact regulations which exceed the language of a statute. Although the LDA uses the term ‘division’ in a more limited fashion, that does not mean the township could not enact a broader definition of the term.” The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. “As the moving party, plaintiffs were required to offer documentary evidence showing no genuine dispute of fact. [They] failed in this regard, so the burden never shifted to defendants to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. However, even if it had shifted, defendants offered documentary proof showing the lakefront parcels may be joined to” the other two parcels “under the township’s ordinances and the trial court was required to view this evidence in a light most favorable to defendants.” As such, the trial court did not err by disregarding their “argument about the completeness of the application because plaintiffs failed to show a genuine dispute of fact as to this issue.” Finally, defendants’ request for attorney fees under MCR 2.625(A) was “misplaced because only costs are recoverable under the rule, not attorney fees.” In addition, to the extent they “believe plaintiffs’ primary purpose in filing suit was to ‘harass, embarrass, or injure’” them, they offered “no evidence of the same, nor is there any evidence of this in the lower court record.”