Action alleging damage to real property due to flooding caused by bridge modifications; Determining the gravamen of the complaint; Statute of limitations (SOL); MCL 600.5805; Accrual; MCL 600.5827; Trentadue v Buckler Lawn Sprinkler; Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equip Repair & Serv Co

The court held that the trial court did not err in considering the gravamen of plaintiff-Kesti’s complaint and determining it related to recovering damages caused by a 2018 flood. Further, because his claim accrued in either 2007 or 2015, this action, filed in 2021, was untimely. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. “Kesti’s property is located downstream from a bridge that is subject to an easement owned by defendants.” They twice altered the bridge. In 2018, heavy rainfall caused flooding that resulted in significant damage to Kesti’s property. As his complaint included a claim for declaratory judgment, the court looked to the claim on which the relief was based. “The trial court found that the gravamen of all of Kesti’s claims ‘is the pursuit of retribution or recompense for property damage caused as the result of the June 2018 Father’s Day Flood in the area.’” The court concluded the complaint’s allegations supported this finding. The gravamen of his declaratory-judgment claim was “the alleged wrongful act that caused damage to” his property. He also sought “money damages under theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence, and interference with riparian rights, all of which pertain to the damage caused by the” flood. All the claims related “to a claim for injury to property within the plain text of MCL 600.5805(2).” As to accrual, he alleged defendants altered the bridge between 2006 and 2008 “‘by putting two vertical poles in the center of [it] that were anchored in the bed of the river.’ [He] testified that the poles caused erosion on his property on the ‘east side’ and that they ‘were already starting to divert the flow of the river to the east.’ He added that defendants performed work on the bridge in 2015 because a structural engineer ‘said that there was erosion that was starting to happen or was happening under the east side abutment.’ Kesti explained that the structural engineer told defendants to ‘pin’ the poles to the bottom, and Kesti stated that ‘they put the riprap in . . . because of the erosion.’” Thus, there was clear testimony “the change in velocity and course of the river before 2015 caused erosion to [his] property, there is no evidence indicating that the velocity and course of the river stopped causing erosion or harm to [his] property before the” flood. The later damages resulting from the bridge alterations did not begin to run the SOL anew.