Grant of a request for declaratory relief; MCR 2.605(A); Whether there was still an actual controversy before the trial court; PT Today, Inc v Commissioner of Office of Fin & Ins Servs; Mootness; League of Women Voters v Secretary of State

The court held that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs declaratory relief in this property dispute “because there was no longer an actual controversy before [it] on the date it entered its declaratory-judgment order, thereby rendering the case moot.” The case concerned seven contiguous parcels of property on a riverbank. “A privately-constructed road spans all seven parcels and provides access to the riverbank. Each parcel is subject to an easement permitting access to the road.” Plaintiffs sought “a declaratory judgment establishing their right to relocate a portion of the road in order to accommodate the construction of a home. Following a bench trial, the trial court” ruled in their favor. It directed them to prepare and file a proposed construction plan for approval and a proposed order for entry. They instead later moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice due to a change in plans. Defendants opposed this motion. The trial court denied it “and instead entered an order effectuating its factual findings and legal conclusions articulated during the bench trial. In doing so, the trial court granted declaratory relief in plaintiffs’ favor.” The court concluded that the moment they “informed the trial court that they no longer planned to relocate a portion of the road, there was no longer an actual legal controversy before the [trial] court.” In moving for voluntary dismissal, plaintiffs asserted that plaintiffs-Lichtermans “decided to build their home on the portion of Lot 7 that was previously intended to accommodate the relocated portion of the road. They explained that the Lichtermans did not wish to wait until the conclusion of the trial court proceedings and potential appellate process before beginning construction. Therefore, the trial court’s declaratory-judgment order could no longer have any practical legal effects upon the existing controversy. In the absence of an actual plan to relocate a portion of the road, the interests of the parties were no longer adverse, and no declaratory judgment was necessary to guide their future conduct. The parties wished to maintain the road’s then-existing construction,” making the legal dispute hypothetical. In granting plaintiffs declaratory relief, “the trial court erroneously granted relief” as to a moot issue. Vacated and remanded “for entry of an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal.”