Deruiter v. Twp. of Byron
| Decision Date | 27 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 158311,158311 |
| Citation | 949 N.W.2d 91,505 Mich. 130 |
| Parties | Christie DERUITER, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. TOWNSHIP OF BYRON, Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Dodge & Dodge, PC (by David A. Dodge ), Grand Rapids, for Christie DeRuiter.
McGraw Morris, PC (by Craig R. Noland and Amanda M. Zdarsky ), Troy, and Mika Meyers PLC (by Ross A. Leisman and Ronald M. Redick ), Grand Rapids, for Byron Township.
Bauckham, Sparks, Thall, Seeber & Kaufman, PC (by Robert E. Thall, Kalamazoo, and Catherine P. Kaufman, Portage), Amici Curiae for the Michigan Townships Association.
Rosati Schultz Joppich & Amtsbuechler PC (by Thomas R. Schultz ), Farmington Hills, Amicus Curiae for the Michigan Municipal League and the Government Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan.
Pollicella & Associates, PLLC (by Denise Pollicella, Farmington Hills, Jaqueline Langwith, and Kyle A. Debruycker) Amici Curiae for Cannabis Attorneys of Michigan.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
In this case, we address whether defendant-counterplaintiff Byron Township's zoning ordinance, which regulates the location of registered medical marijuana caregiver activities and requires that a "primary caregiver"1 obtain a permit before cultivating medical marijuana, is preempted by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (the MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq.2 Specifically, Byron Township's ordinance requires that medical marijuana caregivers cultivate marijuana as a "home occupation" at a full-time residence. Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.1. Plaintiff-counterdefendant, Christie DeRuiter, a registered qualifying patient3 and primary caregiver under the MMMA,4 cultivated medical marijuana on rented commercially zoned property. DeRuiter's landlord was directed by the Byron Township supervisor to cease and desist the cultivation of medical marijuana or face legal action. After Byron Township attempted to enforce its zoning ordinance, DeRuiter sought a declaratory judgment regarding the ordinance's legality. Byron Township countersued and also sought a declaratory judgment regarding the ordinance's legality, arguing that the ordinance did not conflict with the MMMA. The trial court held that § 3.2 of Byron Township's zoning ordinance directly conflicted with, and was therefore preempted by, the MMMA. The trial court granted DeRuiter's motion for summary disposition and denied Byron Township's motion for summary disposition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion. DeRuiter v. Byron Twp. , 325 Mich. App. 275, 287, 926 N.W.2d 268 (2018).
Because we conclude that the Byron Township Zoning Ordinance does not directly conflict with the MMMA, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Christie DeRuiter, a licensed qualifying patient and registered primary caregiver under the MMMA, began growing marijuana on rented commercially zoned property because she did not want to grow marijuana at her residence. DeRuiter grew the marijuana in an "enclosed, locked facility." See MCL 333.26423(d).
After learning of DeRuiter's cultivation of medical marijuana on commercially zoned property, the Byron Township supervisor determined that DeRuiter's growing operation constituted a zoning violation under the Byron Township Zoning Ordinance. The zoning ordinance contains a locational restriction5 that allows for the cultivation of medical marijuana by primary caregivers, but only as "a home occupation." Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.1.6 "Home occupation" is defined by Byron Township as follows:
An occupation or profession that is customarily incidental and secondary to the use of a dwelling. It is customarily conducted within a dwelling, carried out by its occupants utilizing equipment customarily found in a home and, except for a sign allowed by this Ordinance, is generally not distinguishable from the outside. [Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 2.5.]
Under this home-occupation requirement, the ordinance mandates that the "medical use" of marijuana by a primary caregiver be "conducted entirely within a dwelling[7 ] or attached garage, except that a registered primary caregiver may keep and cultivate [medical marijuana], in an enclosed, locked facility...." Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.2.d (quotation marks omitted). The ordinance also requires that "[t]he medical use of marijuana shall comply at all times with the MMMA and the MMMA General Rules, as amended." Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.2.a.
Furthermore, Byron Township requires that primary caregivers obtain a permit to grow medical marijuana. Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.3. If a primary caregiver who holds a permit departs from the requirements of either the ordinance or the MMMA, their permit can be revoked. Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.3.c. Byron Township's zoning ordinance clarifies that a permit is not required for a qualifying patient's cultivation of marijuana for personal use and that a permit is not required for a qualifying patient's possession or use of marijuana in their dwelling. Byron Township Zoning Ordinance, § 3.2.H.5 and § 3.2.H.6. DeRuiter did not obtain a permit from Byron Township before cultivating medical marijuana as a primary caregiver.
In March 2016, Byron Township sent DeRuiter's landlord a letter, directing the landlord to cease and desist DeRuiter's cultivation of medical marijuana and to remove all marijuana and related equipment or be subject to enforcement action. The letter asserted that violations of the zoning ordinance were a nuisance per se.
In May 2016, DeRuiter filed a complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that Byron Township's zoning ordinance was preempted by the MMMA and that it was, therefore, unenforceable. She took issue with the ordinance's permit requirement and locational restriction. She also sought injunctive relief to prevent Byron Township from enforcing the ordinance. Byron Township filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment and abatement of the alleged nuisance.
The trial court granted DeRuiter's motion for summary disposition, denied Byron Township's motion for summary disposition, and dismissed Byron Township's counterclaim. The trial court held that the zoning provisions in question directly conflicted with the MMMA and that, as a result, those provisions were preempted and unenforceable. Specifically, the trial court held that Byron Township's zoning ordinance impermissibly subjected primary caregivers to penalties for the medical use of marijuana and for assisting qualifying patients with the medical use of marijuana regardless of a caregiver's compliance with the MMMA. According to the trial court, these penalties clearly conflicted with the MMMA, which prohibits penalizing qualifying patients and primary caregivers who are in compliance with the MMMA. See MCL 333.26424(a) and (b). The trial court also determined that Byron Township could not prohibit what the MMMA explicitly authorized—the medical use of marijuana under MCL 333.26427(a). According to the trial court, Byron Township ran afoul of these principles by requiring that a primary caregiver obtain a permit to cultivate marijuana, placing locational restrictions on that cultivation, and subjecting caregivers to fines and penalties for noncompliance.
Byron Township appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion, holding that "the trial court did not err by ruling that a direct conflict exist[s] between defendant's ordinance and the MMMA resulting in the MMMA's preemption of plaintiff's home-occupation ordinance." DeRuiter , 325 Mich. App. at 287, 926 N.W.2d 268. Byron Township filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court. We ordered oral argument on the application, directing the parties to address "whether the defendant's zoning ordinance pertaining to the location of registered medical marijuana caregivers is preempted by the [MMMA]." DeRuiter v. Byron Twp. , 503 Mich. 942, 921 N.W.2d 537 (2019).
"Whether a state statute preempts a local ordinance is a question of statutory interpretation and, therefore, a question of law that we review de novo." Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming , 297 Mich. App. 446, 452, 823 N.W.2d 864 (2012) ( Ter Beek I ), aff'd 495 Mich. 1, 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014). "We also review de novo the decision to grant or deny summary disposition and review for clear error factual findings in support of that decision." Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming , 495 Mich. 1, 8, 846 N.W.2d 531 (2014) ( Ter Beek II ) (citations omitted).
The MMMA was enacted by voter referendum in 2008. "Statutes enacted by the Legislature are interpreted in accordance with legislative intent; similarly, statutes enacted by initiative petition are interpreted in accordance with the intent of the electors."8 People v. Mazur , 497 Mich. 302, 308, 872 N.W. 2d 201 (2015). "We begin with an examination of the statute's plain language, which provides ‘the most reliable evidence’ of the electors’ intent." Id. , citing Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward , 460 Mich. 230, 236, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999). "If the statutory language is unambiguous, ... [n]o further judicial construction is required or permitted because we must conclude that the electors intended the meaning clearly expressed." People v. Bylsma , 493 Mich. 17, 26, 825 N.W.2d 543 (2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original).
Generally, local governments may control and regulate matters of local concern when such power is conferred by the state. City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison Co. , 475 Mich. 109, 117-118, 715 N.W.2d 28 (2006). State law, however, may preempt a local regulation either expressly or by implication. Mich. Gun Owners, Inc. v. Ann Arbor Pub. Sch. , 502 Mich. 695, 702, 918 N.W.2d 756 (2018), citing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Energy Mich., Inc. v. Scripps
-
Rott v. Rott
...questions of statutory of interpretation and a trial court's decision to grant or deny summary disposition. DeRuiter v. Byron Twp. , 505 Mich. 130, 139, 949 N.W.2d 91 (2020). Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine was properly invoked and to what extent it applies to a case are questions of l......
-
Bronner v. City of Detroit
...directly conflicts with state law, i.e., when the provision permits what the statute prohibits or vice versa. DeRuiter v. Byron Twp. , 505 Mich. 130, 140, 949 N.W.2d 91 (2020). As with the field-preemption inquiry, no one here expressly framed the case in these terms. But the mode of analys......
-
J.A. Bloch & Co. v. Ann Arbor Twp.
..."local governments may control and regulate matters of local concern when such power is conferred by the state." DeRuiter v Byron Twp, 505 Mich. 130, 140; 949 N.W.2d 91 (2020). "State law, however, may preempt a local regulation either expressly or by implication. Implied preemption can occ......