Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural Resources Com'n, Docket No. 106755

Citation446 N.W.2d 895,180 Mich.App. 324
Decision Date26 October 1989
Docket NumberDocket No. 106755
PartiesHIGHLAND RECREATION DEFENSE FOUNDATION, a Michigan Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION and Department of Natural Resources, Defendants-Appellees. 180 Mich.App. 324, 446 N.W.2d 895
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)

[180 MICHAPP 326] Vanderkloot & Haynes, P.C. by Jeffrey K. Haynes, Bloomfield Hills, for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Thomas J. Emery and Leo H. Friedman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellees.

Before HOOD, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FITZGERALD, * JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of the trial court denying its request for a permanent injunction and finding for defendants. The order was issued following a four-day bench trial and in accordance with a written opinion of the court. Plaintiff had sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment regarding a use permit issued by defendants to the National Campers and Hikers Association (NCHA) for a National Campvention to be held at Highland State Recreation Area in July, 1988. We affirm.

Plaintiff's appeal primarily deals with issues relevant to the court's declaratory judgment. Our review of those issues is de novo on the record. Odette v. Liquor Control Comm., 171 Mich.App. 137, 141, 429 N.W.2d 814 (1988).

The defendants argue that the completion of the [180 MICHAPP 327] Campvention has rendered plaintiff's issues moot. Even if technically moot, our review is not precluded where, as here, there is an issue of public significance which may recur and yet evade review. Contesti v. Attorney General, 164 Mich.App. 271, 278, 416 N.W.2d 410 (1987). In re Wayne Co. Election Comm., 150 Mich.App. 427, 432-433, 388 N.W.2d 707 (1986).

What primarily concerns this Court is the reasoning of the trial court as to why plaintiff could not rely on MCR 2.201(B)(4)(a) to pursue its claims concerning unauthorized expenditures of state money. The trial court erred in interpreting the term "nonprofit corporation" as used in the rule to mean that plaintiff must have filed for tax-exempt charitable organization status. No authority was cited for this proposition and we are aware of nothing in the court rules, statutes or case law which would support this interpretation. The Nonprofit Corporation Act at M.C.L. Sec. 450.2108(2); M.S.A. Sec. 21.197(108)(2) provides:

"Nonprofit corporation" means either of the following:

(a) A corporation incorporated to carry out any lawful purpose or purposes not involving pecuniary profit or gain for its directors, officers, shareholders, or members.

(b) A corporation which has been designated as a tax exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code or is eligible to apply for such a designation.

Plaintiff's articles of incorporation filed with the State of Michigan indicate that its purpose does not involve pecuniary profit or gain. There is nothing in the record indicating otherwise. Subparagraph (b) of the statute specifically states that the corporation need only be eligible to apply for [180 MICHAPP 328] tax exempt status to be "nonprofit." 1 We find no basis for finding that plaintiff was not a nonprofit organization for purposes of the rule.

However, that plaintiff is considered a "real party in interest" under the court rule does not necessarily mean it has standing to bring this action.

The requirement of standing insures that only those who have a substantial interest in a dispute will be allowed to come into court to complain. Saginaw Public Libraries Bd. of Comm'rs v. Judges of the 70th Dist. Court, 118 Mich.App. 379, 385, 325 N.W.2d 777 (1982). The claims plaintiff sought to bring under this court rule are basically that there have been illegal expenditures of public funds. Typically where an action alleges illegal expenditures, the plaintiff must show it will sustain substantial injury or suffer loss or damage through increased taxation or its consequences. See Menendez v. Detroit, 337 Mich. 476, 482, 60 N.W.2d 319 (1953). As noted by the trial court, plaintiff has not claimed that it will sustain any damage as a result of the alleged illegal expenditures and therefore it does not have standing under Menendez.

Plaintiff argues however that this is not the typical taxpayer's suit and it has standing to contest illegal expenditures made in violation of Const. 1963, art. 4, Sec. 30. That section of the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature for the appropriation of public money or property for local or private purposes.

This issue was not reached by the trial court below. Although the issue could therefore be remanded, we will consider it now since the record as to this issue appears complete.

[180 MICHAPP 329] We do not find that plaintiff has standing under this argument. First, plaintiff has not set forth why it has a direct interest in enforcing compliance with this provision so that it has standing. See Muskegon Bldg. & Construction Trades v. Muskegon Intermediate School Dist., 130 Mich.App. 420, 427-428, 343 N.W.2d 579 (1983). Second, assuming such an interest, plaintiff's argument that legislative approval was needed here requires a finding that the money spent for the Campvention was for a private purpose. The argument that this was a private purpose appears to be based on the fact that the NCHA was allowed exclusive use of the facilities during the Campvention. We do not find this argument persuasive.

As noted by the trial court, the DNR retained unbridled access to all areas of the park covered by the permit, and restricted the NCHA's activities in a variety of ways. The granting of exclusive use for a limited time appears to be a reasonable accommodation which would be to the benefit of everyone seeking to use the park. Limiting access would assure that the resources of the park were not overtaxed and that areas were not used beyond their capacities. The improvements themselves appear to be consistent with the general recreational and educational purposes of the park. Plaintiff has not presented us with any authority to support a finding that this limited exclusive use resulted as a matter of law in an unconstitutional public expenditure for a private purpose. Nor do these facts support such a finding.

Therefore, while we disagree with the trial court's interpretation of MCR 2.201(B)(4)(a), we agree that plaintiff did not have standing as to this issue. Where the trial court reaches the right result for the wrong reason, this Court will not [180 MICHAPP 330] reverse. Peterfish v. Frantz, 168 Mich.App. 43, 53, 424 N.W.2d 25 (1988).

As to plaintiff's other issues, our review of the record and the applicable law indicates that there is no basis for reversal. We agree with the trial court that the permit was a license and not a lease. It clearly does no more than grant permission to do certain activities on the property without giving the NCHA any permanent or possessory interest in the land. Macke Laundry Service Co. v. Overgaard, 173 Mich.App. 250, 253-254, 433 N.W.2d 813 (1988). We also agree that defendants had the authority to issue the permit. M.C.L. Sec. 299.2(2); M.S.A. Sec. 13.2(2); 1979 AC, R 299.322.

Our review also indicates that the trial court's determination that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), M.C.L. Sec. 691.1203(1); M.S.A. Sec. 14.528(203)(1), was not clearly erroneous. Rush v. Sterner, 143 Mich.App. 672, 678, 373 N.W.2d 183 (1985). While plaintiff established that a natural resource was involved, it did not establish that defendants' conduct rose to the level of impairment which would justify the court's intervention. Kent Co. Road Comm. v. Hunting, 170 Mich.App. 222, 233, 428 N.W.2d 353 (1988); Portage v. Kalamazoo Co. Road...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rosebush, In re
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 8, 1992
    ...the issues involve questions of public significance that may recur and yet evade review. Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural Resources Comm., 180 Mich.App. 324, 327, 446 N.W.2d 895 (1989). See also In re LHR, 253 Ga. 439, 321 S.E.2d 716 (1984); In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 3......
  • House Speaker v. Governor
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 3, 1992
    ... ... MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOUNDATION ... GOVERNOR ... Nos. 148677-148679 ... the state's role with respect to its natural resources by expressly abolishing the existing ... gtd. 439 Mich. 1013 (1992), citing Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural ... ...
  • House Speaker v. State Administrative Bd.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 9, 1991
    ... ... totalling $212,300 in the Department of Natural Resources, $210,000 in the Department of State ... Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural[190 ... ...
  • Dimas v. MACOMB CTY. ELECTION COMM.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 25, 2002
    ... ... the basis of the recall drive, so that a defense can be mounted regarding that conduct.10 "Where ... may recur and yet evade review." See Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT