e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 72008
Opinion Date : 12/19/2019
e-Journal Date : 01/13/2020
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Stomber v. Sanilac Cnty. Drain Comm'r
Practice Area(s) : Municipal, Real Property
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Ronayne Krause, Cavanagh, and Shapiro
Full Text Opinion
Issues:

Whether a row of trees was within the drain easement; “Reasonable area” for maintenance; Kiesel Intercounty Drainage Bd. v. Hooper; Actual extent of the easement in the right-of-way releases; Survey defined; Contract interpretation; Klapp v. United Ins. Group Agency, Inc.; Stamadianos v. Stamadianos; Inverse condemnation or unlawful taking; Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club; Tolksdorf v. Griffith; K&K Constr., Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Quality; Heinrich v. City of Detroit; Merkur Steel Supply Inc. v. City of Detroit; Substantive due process; Bevan v. Brandon Twp.; Robinson v. City of Bloomfield Hills; “Shocks the conscience” standard; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; Whether defendant-drain commissioner breached a contract he entered into with plaintiff to allow him to perform the maintenance himself; Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc.; Hammel v. Floor; Strong v. Hercules Life Ins. Co.; “Pending”; Grievance Adm’r v. Fieger; Provision of an estimate as an offer under some circumstances; Guthrie v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Unpub.); Language suggesting the estimate was only an offer to negotiate a contract; Dyno Constr. Co. v. McWayne Inc. (6th Cir.)

Summary

The court held that defendant-drain commissioner (the DC) acted within his lawful authority and the scope of the Easement by removing some of plaintiff’s second row of trees, and as he did not abuse his powers, plaintiff could not prevail on an inverse condemnation or uncompensated takings claim. Further, the court could not determine on this record that he abused or selectively enforced his powers to violate plaintiff’s due process rights. Finally, the trial court correctly held that plaintiff did not establish a genuine question of fact whether he and the DC entered into a contract. The case arose from the destruction of most of a double row of trees plaintiff planted on his property. “The trees were immediately to the north of a drainage ditch that ran along the edge of” his property, adjacent to the road. It was not disputed that one row of the trees was inside the drain easement. The parties disputed whether the other row was within it. Kiesel was controlling authority. Plaintiff was correct that the facts here were significantly distinguishable. “The trial court wrongly reasoned that the [DC] was empowered to remove plaintiff’s second row of trees because they were located ‘a mere few feet’ from the edge of the Easement.” This was a misreading of the case and contrary to the law. “If the trees were located outside the Easement,” the DC did not have “authority to destroy them, no matter how de minimus the distance outside the Easement.” But because the Easement actually extended beyond the 50 feet specifically described in the right-of-way releases, the trial court reached the correct result. “Under Kiesel, the reasonable maintenance area is necessarily coterminous with any documented formal easement. However, because the Easement explicitly includes ‘sufficient ground’ for drain work, the trial court correctly understood that it was required to determine a reasonable maintenance area. If a reasonable maintenance area extends beyond fifty feet from the center-line of the Drain, then the Easement is coterminous with that area.” The court was unable “to find clear error in the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s second row of trees was within the ‘reasonable maintenance area.’” It noted that there “was no real dispute that the second row of trees had been planted within a few feet of” the 50-foot boundary. Further, they had grown to the point where their trunks abutted it, and their branches extended into that area. Importantly, there was no factual dispute that unless the DC “worked from the road, which would require permission from the road commission, only some of the trees could be worked around, and” then only by using special equipment. Affirmed.

Full Text Opinion