Mandamus; McCoy v Berrien Cnty Clerk; Motion to compel a county water resources commissioner to clean & maintain an alleged county drain; Elba Twp v Gratiot Cnty Drain Comm’r; Whether the drain was an existing county drain under the commissioner’s jurisdiction

Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s conclusion “that the alleged drain was not within” defendant-county water resources commissioner’s jurisdiction, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for mandamus and other relief. He sought an order requiring defendant “‘to undertake the necessary steps to finance, engineer, clean and maintain Helmer Creek and its branches for the foreseeable future of at least 76 years.’” The heart of the parties’ dispute was “whether Helmer Creek is an existing county drain under defendant’s jurisdiction.” The court noted that plaintiff’s “proofs largely consisted of topographical maps and photos of Helmer Creek and the surrounding area, showing its varying conditions over the centuries. But none of these proofs specifically addressed whether Helmer Creek, or the ‘Williams Drain,’ had previously been established as a county drain under the legal requirements of the Drain Code.” Defendant, on the other hand, “put forth proofs demonstrating that no drain was ever legally established in the area.” Among these proofs was a 2/53 “order issued by the Calhoun County Probate Court in which the court invalidated all existing and subsequent proceedings related to the Williams Drain because no statutorily mandated ‘application to locate, establish and construct any such drain known as Williams Drain ha[d] been filed,’ and so ‘there [wa]s no such existing drain[.]’” The court noted that it was “clear from the record that, for years prior to his 2023 submission, plaintiff had been consistently informed that no drain had been established.” This included a formal legal opinion letter he received “from attorneys in defendant’s office that Helmer Creek, or the ‘Williams Drain,’ was not an established county drain.” While he may disagree with this conclusion, as the trial court recognized, nothing he offered was “sufficient to cast meaningful doubt upon it.” And the court held that the trial court’s findings in support of its decision were sufficiently clear to facilitate its review of the issue. As there was “no existing drain under defendant’s jurisdiction, the remainder of plaintiff’s related arguments—which are premised on requirements and remedies fundamentally contingent on the existence of an already-established drain—necessarily fail.”