Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was electrocuted while carrying a long-handled aluminum tool at a construction site. The tool either touched or came close to a high-voltage power line owned by the defendant utility company. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including amputations and a traumatic brain injury. He filed a lawsuit against the general contractor and the utility company, alleging negligence and premises liability.The Wayne Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the general contractor was not liable under the common work area doctrine and that the utility company did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding three of the four elements of the common work area doctrine for the general contractor. Specifically, there were factual disputes about the height of the power lines and whether the general contractor took reasonable steps to guard against the danger. The court also found that multiple subcontractors were exposed to the risk, satisfying the requirement of a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers in a common work area.Regarding the utility company, the court found genuine issues of material fact about whether the power lines were properly maintained and whether the injury was foreseeable. The court concluded that the utility company had a duty to ensure the safety of the power lines, given the pre-injury communications and the known dangers of high-reaching conductive tools.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "El-Jamaly V Kirco Manix Construction Llc" on Justia Law

Daoud M. Janini and Feryal Janini filed a complaint against London Townhouses Condominium Association, alleging that the association failed to maintain the sidewalk by not removing snow and ice, leading to Daoud Janini's fall and subsequent brain injury. The plaintiffs owned a condominium unit in the complex, and the association was responsible for maintaining common areas, including the sidewalk where the incident occurred.The Wayne Circuit Court granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition in part, dismissing all claims except for the premises-liability claim. The defendant appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that because the plaintiffs were co-owners of the land, they could not bring a premises-liability claim. The plaintiffs then sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a co-owner of a condominium unit is considered an invitee when entering the common elements of the condominium project. The court determined that the condominium association owes a duty of reasonable care to protect co-owners from dangerous conditions in these common areas. The court overruled the previous decision in Francescutti v. Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, which had precluded such claims. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the conditional rezoning of a property in Mayfield Township, Michigan. The property, owned by A2B Properties, LLC, had been the site of the Lapeer International Dragway since 1968. In 2018, A2B purchased the dragway, expanded the facilities, and increased its hours of operation. In 2021, A2B filed a conditional-rezoning agreement with the township, seeking to have the property rezoned from Residential Agricultural District (R-1) to General Commercial District (C-2), with limitations on when the dragway could operate. The township board approved the conditional-rezoning agreement and rezoned the property as requested. However, Ronald and Susan Jostock, who live near the dragway, filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief that the conditional rezoning was erroneous and injunctive relief to enjoin the conditional rezoning.In the lower courts, the Lapeer Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition and granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs, noting that the rezoning was conditioned on A2B operating the dragway in a specified manner. However, because operation of a dragway is not a permitted use in the C-2 district, A2B had erroneously bound itself to perform conditions it could not lawfully perform in that district. On that basis, the trial court held that the conditional rezoning was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, reasoning that the conditional-rezoning agreement was void because use as a dragway was not an approved use for that area under the township’s zoning ordinance.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a conditional rezoning is invalid under MCL 125.3405(1) if the proposed use is not a permitted use—either by right or after special approval—within the proposed zoning district. The court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether a dragway is a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district. View "Jostock v. Mayfield Township" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Long Lake Township and Todd and Heather Maxon. The township alleged that the Maxons were storing junk cars on their property, violating a zoning ordinance, a nuisance law, and a 2008 settlement agreement. As the property was not visible from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs and video of the property without the Maxons' permission or a warrant. The Maxons moved to suppress the aerial photographs and all other evidence obtained by the township from the drone, asserting that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.The Grand Traverse Circuit Court denied the Maxons’ motion, reasoning that the drone surveillance did not constitute a search. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the lower court's ruling, holding that the drone surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The township appealed to the Supreme Court, which ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court then vacated its earlier order and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule applied. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a split decision, held that the exclusionary rule did not apply and that the photographs and video could not be suppressed regardless of whether the township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property.The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. The court found that the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing it, and the exclusionary rule therefore did not apply. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Long Lake Township v. Maxon" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Pegasus Wind, LLC's request for variances to construct eight additional wind turbines near the Tuscola Area Airport. The Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Board of Appeals (AZBA) denied the variances, citing that the turbines would pose a danger to pilots during in-flight emergencies, create potential choke points for pilots flying under visual flight rules (VFR) restrictions, increase the minimum descent altitude, and interfere with the airport's primary radar. Pegasus appealed the decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the AZBA's denial.The circuit court's decision was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the evidence supporting Pegasus's position was more persuasive than the evidence relied on by the AZBA. The Court of Appeals conducted its own factual review and concluded that the addition of eight new turbines would not create additional risk to the airport.The case was then brought before the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' conclusion, stating that the Court of Appeals had essentially conducted a de novo review of the facts, which was inappropriate. The Supreme Court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the AZBA's decision and that the circuit court did not err in affirming the AZBA's findings. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the AZBA's denial of the variances. View "Pegasus Wind LLC V Tuscola County" on Justia Law

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, addressed the applicability of the Recreational Land Use Act (RUA) and the owner-liability provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code to a case involving a fatal off-road vehicle (ORV) accident. The accident occurred on private land owned by the defendants, also the grandparents and vehicle owners, and involved their 12-year-old granddaughter. The plaintiff, mother of the deceased, sought to hold the defendants liable.The court held that the RUA, which limits a landowner's liability for injuries occurring during recreational activity on their property to instances of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct, applies in this case. It found that the RUA applies to the plaintiff's proposed owner-liability claim, which is premised on the defendants' ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident. The court reasoned that the longstanding nature of owner liability when the RUA was enacted, the RUA's detailed provisions and lack of an exception for owner liability, and the optimal effect given to both statutes under this interpretation, indicate that the legislature intended the RUA to limit owner liability under the Michigan Vehicle Code.Since the plaintiff did not challenge the lower court's finding that there was no factual support for gross negligence on the part of the defendants, the court affirmed the trial court's decision granting the defendants' motion for summary disposition and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint. View "Estate Of Riley Robinson v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Two cases consolidated for the Michigan Supreme Court's review involved premises liability, specifically slip-and-fall instances where plaintiffs both argued while the hazards were open and obvious, they were unavoidable. In Case No. 162907, Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed filed a negligence action based on premises liability after she slipped and fell at a gas station defendant F & E Oil, Inc. operated. Plaintiff argued snow and ice on the premises constituted a dangerous condition. In Case No. 163430, Renee Pinsky tripped over a cable that had been strung from a checkout counter to a display basket at a local Kroger supermarket. In both cases, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that because the hazards were open and obvious and no special aspects were present, they owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The trial court granted defendant's motion in the former case, but denied defendant's motion in the latter case. The respective losing parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in both cases: although defendants in both cases owed a duty to the respective injured plaintiffs, there remained genuine issues of fact that were relevant to whether the defendants breached that duty and if so, whether plaintiffs were comparatively at fault and should have their damages reduced. The judgments of the Court of Appeals were reversed, and both cases were remanded for further proceedings. View "Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs brought this action after the defendant modified a storm water drainage system, allegedly causing flooding onto their property. The plaintiffs raised two distinct claims that remained at issue on appeal: a claim under the sewage-disposal-system- event (SDSE) exception to governmental immunity under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), and a common-law trespass-nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed both claims as untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations. Like the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, holding the SDSE claim, which sought relief only in connection with flooding that occurred within the three-year window, was timely. However, unlike the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court concluded that because the defendant was immune with respect to the plaintiffs’ common-law trespass-nuisance claim, that claim was properly dismissed. In light of this holding, the Court vacated as unnecessary the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trespass-nuisance claim was timely. Finally, because the plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief in connection with that claim, their request for an injunction was invalid. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant with respect to the plaintiff’s SDSE claim, affirmed with respect to the common-law trespass-nuisance claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sunrise Resort Association, Inc. v. Cheboygan County Road Commission" on Justia Law

Reyes Galvan and Minhwa Kim sued Yam Foo Poon, Hwai-Tzu Hong Poon, and Daniel Poon alleging fraud, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, silent fraud, innocent misrepresentation, loss of consortium, and breach of a warranty deed. In 2017, plaintiffs bought a condominium in Ann Arbor from defendants, and defendants transferred title to plaintiffs via a warranty deed. The deed warranted, among other things, that pursuant to MCL 565.151, the property was “free from all incumbrances.” While renovating the condominium, plaintiffs learned of several issues with the property, including that there was no proper firewall between their condo and the neighboring units, and that one of the defendants had signed a unit-modification form indicating that a wall had been moved and that a neighboring unit encroached on the upstairs bathroom of plaintiffs’ unit. Because the absence of a firewall violated the city’s building code, the City of Ann Arbor sued plaintiffs and their adjoining neighbors to enforce the code and require installation of firewalls. Plaintiffs were ordered to pay $18,000, in part to bring the walls of their unit into compliance with the building code, and they also spent additional funds to remediate other problems with the property. During a jury trial, defendants moved for a directed verdict on plaintiffs’ breach-of-warranty claim, arguing that the building code violations were not an encumbrance. The trial court agreed and directed verdict in favor of defendants on this claim. The jury subsequently found in favor of plaintiffs regarding their claims of silent fraud and loss of consortium. Galvan appealed the directed verdict, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the building code violations constituted an encumbrance in violation of the warranty deed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, finding that a violation of a building code at the time of sale, not yet subject to any official enforcement action, was not an encumbrance. View "Galvan v. Poon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Mack Stirling lived in Leelanau County, Michigan since 1990. Petitioner’s wife, Dixie, owned two rental properties in Utah. The Stirlings filed joint tax returns for the pertinent tax years of 2016 to 2019. Neither Mack nor Dixie ever resided at the Utah properties. Instead, Dixie rented the properties to tenants who used the properties as their primary residences. Dixie claimed an applicable Utah tax exemption during the relevant tax years. Plaintiff applied for a principal residence exemption (PRE) on his Michigan home. Leelanau County denied the application because it concluded the Utah exemption rendered the Stirlings ineligible for the PRE. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed: the Utah tax exemption at issue, which was available to landowners who rented their property to tenants, was not substantially similar to Michigan’s PRE, which was available only for a landowner’s principal residence. Accordingly, Plaintiff was eligible to claim the Michigan PRE. View "Stirling v. County of Leelanau" on Justia Law