Eyde v. State, 56188

• Decision Date: 21 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 56188,56188
• Citation: 225 N.W.2d 1,393 Mich. 453
• Parties: Patrick EYDE and Michael Eyde, individually and as taxpayers of Delta Township in the State of Michigan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Michigan and the Charter Township of Delta, Defendants-Appellees. 393 Mich. 453, 225 N.W.2d 1
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 1

225 N.W.2d 1

393 Mich. 453 Patrick EYDE and Michael Eyde, individually and as taxpayers of Delta Township in the State of Michigan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Michigan and the Charter Township of Delta Defendants-Appellees.

No. 56188.

393 Mich. 453, 225 N.W.2d 1

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 21, 1975.

Before the Entire Bench.

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application by the plaintiffs-appellants for leave to appeal is considered and the same is hereby granted.

The Court, Sua sponte pursuant to GCR 1963, 865.1(7) reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstates the order of the Ingham County Circuit Court.

I.

This is a suit in equity filed in the Ingham County Circuit Court seeking to enjoin the construction of a sewer as violative of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). M.C.L.A. § 691.1201 et seq.; M.S.A. § 14.528(201) et seq.

The trial court found that the sewer, as planned, would 'pollute, impair and destroy water and other natural resources' not only upon the plaintiffs' property but would cause 'additional damage down stream in the Carrier Creek to the Grand River into Lake Michigan.' The trial court granted the injunction but required plaintiffs to furnish an alternative route across their property, which would reduce the adverse impact on the environment without significant prejudice to defendants.

The trial court found this EPA suit raised issues that were not 'the same matters presented in the condemnation action . . .' (Delta Twp. v. Eyde, 389 Mich. 549, 208 N.W.2d 168 (1973)) and that action was not Res judicata.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court in an unpublished memorandum opinion which reads in its entirety:

'We perceive no purpose to be served by writing extensively in this case. It is patently a dilatory effort to forestall construction of a necessary sewer, delayed by litigation for over three years. All of the bases employed by the circuit court in granting relief to plaintiffs were, or could have been disposed of in the Eaton county condemnation proceedings affirmed in Delta Township v. Eyde, 389 Mich. 549; 208 N.W.2d 168 (1973).'

II.

The EPA is significant legislation which gives the private citizen a sizable share of the initiative for environmental law enforcement. The act creates an independent cause of action, granting standing to private individuals to maintain actions in the Circuit Court for declaratory and other equitable relief against anyone for the protection of Michigan's environment.

There is no statutory duty that requires citizens to intervene in condemnation proceedings to assert their rights under the EPA or be forever barred from raising them. It is true that a condemnation action is an In rem action and binds all persons with respect to its traditional objectives. See Todd v. State Highway Commissioner, 227 Mich. 208, 210, 198 N.W. 945 (1924). However, it is not In rem with regard to environmental rights under the EPA. Consequently, the established principle that those not party or privy to an action are unaffected by the judgment rendered in that action applies. Laskowski v. People's Ice Co., 203 Mich. 186, 194, 168 N.W. 940 (1918); Phillips v. Jamieson, 51 Mich. 153, 154, 16 N.W. 318 (1883).

Thus, even if we were to find that plaintiffs, as parties to the condemnation proceeding, were barred from bringing an action for injunctive relief because of Res judicata, that doctrine need not prevent the plaintiffs from having a friend or neighbor file for injunctive relief under the EPA.

For the following reasons, this Court sitting in equity,...