Condemnation; Const 1963, art 10, § 2; The Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act; MCL 213.56(1), (5), & (6); MCL 213.62; Consumers Energy Co v Storm; Motion for a necessity hearing; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Failure to make a statutorily compliant good-faith offer to acquire the easements; MCL 213.55(1); Lenawee Cnty v Wagley; Appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(B)(4); MCR 7.205(A)

The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant the parties’ various applications for leave to appeal, but the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff-gas company’s condemnation complaints because plaintiff “did not make a statutorily compliant good-faith offer to acquire the easements.” Plaintiff sought condemnation of easements for a natural-gas pipeline to replace an existing pipeline. It sued defendants-Trust and cotrustees, because the Trust owned two parcels of land through which plaintiff wished to build the replacement pipeline. Defendant-Double Eagle also contested the condemnation. The trial court found none of the defendants was entitled to a necessity hearing. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to consider these appeals because the Trust failed to timely appeal the first order denying its motion to challenge necessity, which also bound Double Eagle. “Because the individual applications for appeal were filed within 21 days of entry of the respective orders at issue, this court had the authority to grant the applications.” The court then agreed with defendants that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the condemnation complaints because plaintiff failed to submit a written good-faith offer to Double Eagle to acquire the easements. Plaintiff “did not secure relevant information regarding Double Eagle’s interest in the easements before making its initial offer as permitted by MCL 213.55(2).” And the “Trust’s failure to disclose Double Eagle’s farming lease thus did not excuse [plaintiff’s] failure to provide a good-faith written offer to acquire Double Eagle’s interest in the easements before filing its condemnation complaint. [It] therefore failed to satisfy the necessary condition precedent to invoking the trial court’s jurisdiction in the condemnation proceedings.” Reversed and remanded.