Request to amend the complaint; Whether violation of a township ordinance constituted a claim of nuisance per se; Costs & attorney fees; MCL 600.2591; Abandoned issues

The court concluded that plaintiff’s issues all—preserved and unpreserved—were abandoned because she failed to adequately brief her arguments. And to the extent it was able to decipher her arguments, the court rejected them. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant. The only issues that she properly preserved were “(1) whether plaintiff had a right to amend her complaint, (2) whether defendant’s violation of the township ordinance constituted a claim of nuisance per se, and (3) whether plaintiff should have been sanctioned.” The court held that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint because plaintiff failed to present her amendment to the trial court in writing in accordance with the requirements of MCR 2.118(A)(4).” Second, the court held that she “did not have a viable nuisance per se claim because even if defendant violated the township’s ordinance, the ordinance, which amounts to a noise ordinance, cannot serve as a basis for plaintiff’s nuisance per se claim.” Lastly, it determined that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring plaintiff to pay defendant’s attorney fees because plaintiff’s due-process claim against defendant—a private entity—was devoid of arguable legal merit at the outset.”