Dorfman v. Department of State Highways, Docket No. 20638

• Decision Date: 03 December 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 20638
• Citation: 66 Mich.App. 1,238 N.W.2d 395
• Parties: Stanley DORFMAN and Marilyn Dorfman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS, State of Michigan, Defendant-Appellant. 66 Mich.App. 1, 238 N.W.2d 395
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 395

238 N.W.2d 395

Stanley DORFMAN and Marilyn Dorfman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS, State of Michigan Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 20638.

66 Mich.App. 1, 238 N.W.2d 395

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Dec. 3, 1975.

Released for Publication Feb. 17, 1976.

[66 MICHAPP 1] Russ E. Boltz, Bloomfield Hills, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before QUINN, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.

QUINN, Presiding Judge.

This class action was brought for declaratory relief pursuant to GCR 1963, 521 to determine the rights and legal relations of the parties with respect to a restrictive covenant entered into by persons not parties to the action. The judgment below was in favor of plaintiffs and defendant appeals.

The named plaintiffs (hereinafter plaintiffs) and the class they represent are lot owners and residents of Huntington Woods Manor, a subdivision located in Huntington Woods. The entire subdivision was originally covered by master deed residential restrictions which expired in 1955. In 1958, 22 lot owners on the south side of Wales Street entered into the restrictive covenant involved and recorded it. Sometime thereafter, defendant acquired the 22 lots through condemnation and purchase preparatory to constructing a superhighway.

Two sections of the 1958 restrictive agreement are pertinent:

'2. All of the parties to this agreement agree to continue to use the lands, the subject matter of this agreement, for single family dwelling purposes.

'4. These covenants shall also run to the benefit of other owners of land in said subdivision provided said lands are used for single family dwelling purposes.'

Defendant states the issues raised on appeal as:

[66 MICHAPP 3] 'Is the court of claims the proper forum in which to adjudicate rights and litigate damages for interference with restrictive covenants in a subdivision where the defendant is a department of the State of Michigan?

'May plaintiffs claim rights under a restrictive covenant agreement where they were not signatory parties to such agreement and where the original subdivision master deed restrictions have expired?

The first issue involves defendant's attack on the jurisdiction of the trial court. That attack is invalid for two reasons. The court of claims cannot grant declaratory judgments, Taylor v. Auditor General, 360 Mich. 146, 103 N.W.2d 769 (1960). This action was for a declaratory judgment. While damage claims against the state must be brought in the court of claims, M.C.L.A. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419, this action did not seek damages nor were any awarded.

Essentially, the judgment of the trial court held:

1. That the 1958 restriction agreement was valid.

2. That the plaintiffs and the class they represent are the third-party beneficiaries of the restriction agreement.

3. That the plaintiffs have the legal right to enforce the agreement.

4. That the defendant is bound by the agreement.

Prior to the expiration of the residential restrictions contained in the master deed, there is no question that plaintiffs could enforce those restrictions. The subdivision was designed for and has been maintained as a residential area. Can it continue as such absent a restrictive...