J.A. Bloch & Co. v. Ann Arbor Twp.

• Decision Date: 22 December 2022
• Docket Number: 359265
• Parties: J.A. BLOCH AND COMPANY and SUN ACQ, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANN ARBOR TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee, and VILLAGE OF BARTON HILLS and BARTON HILLS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Intervenors.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

J.A. BLOCH AND COMPANY and SUN ACQ, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ANN ARBOR TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee,

and VILLAGE OF BARTON HILLS and BARTON HILLS MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Intervenors.

No. 359265

Court of Appeals of Michigan

December 22, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 21-000173-CZ

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and BORRELLO and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM

The present case arises from a dispute over a proposed manufactured-home development in Ann Arbor Township and, more specifically, the continued validity of a 1975 court order authorizing a development on the site in question. Plaintiffs appeal as of right an order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition and instead entering judgment in favor of defendant, Ann Arbor Township, under MCR 2.116(I)(2). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As previously stated, this dispute relates to a proposed mobile-home or manufactured-home development in Ann Arbor Township. The property at issue consists of three parcels, totaling approximately 139 acres. In the 1970s, plaintiffs' predecessors-Herman Doletsky, Mary Doletsky, Mort Levin, Harry Nayer, Robert Warren, and Penz Development Company (collectively, the Doletsky plaintiffs)-filed suit against the township, seeking an injunction

1

directing the township to allow use of the property as a mobile-home park under the R-5 classification, which governed mobile-home-park districts in the township at that time. At the time, the township had no areas in the township zoned as R-5. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an opinion, a supplemental opinion, and ultimately a judgment in favor of the Doletsky plaintiffs. Specifically, the final judgment of the trial court entered on April 25, 1975. In relevant part, the final judgment stated:

IT IS ORDERED and adjudged that the present zoning of the [Doletsky] plaintiffs' 139 acres of real estate in Ann Arbor Township [as described with a metes and bounds description and references to deeds recorded with the Register of Deeds for Washtenaw County]

* * * is invalid because it bears no substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare; and that [the Doletsky] Plaintiffs are entitled to a permit for the development of such property as a mobile home park in accordance with the terms and conditions of the R-5 zoning classification contained in Ann Arbor Township's Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with public health regulations

IT SHALL BE AND HEREBY IS ORDERED that the above described property shall for all purposes be deemed to be zoned in the said R-5 zoning classification

It is adjudged that Plaintiffs or any of them or their successors, if any, are entitled to develop the above described real property as a mobile home park in accordance with the terms and conditions of the R-5 zoning classification contained in Ann Arbor Township's Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with public health and regulations

It is further ordered that [the township] shall issue such permits as may be necessary under its ordinances for development of the above-described real property as a mobile home park in accordance with the terms of this judgment.

The township appealed to this Court, and a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning, in part:

The township has provided a mobile home zoning district, but has failed to so zone any property in the township. [The township's] argument that there has been no previous request for rezoning to R-5 is inapposite. Mobile home parks have been totally excluded from the township. The ordinance is invalid as applied to the [Doletsky] plaintiff's use of their land. [Doletsky v Ann Arbor Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 20, 1976 (Docket No. 24056), p 3.]

The township then sought delayed leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court denied. Doletsky v Ann Arbor Twp, 399 Mich. 834 (1977).

2

Following the original lawsuit, the property was transferred in its entirety to J.A. Bloch, which was formerly known as Penz Development. In the late 1980s, J.A. Bloch made some efforts toward development of a mobile-home park, including submitting a site plan to the township and requesting the rezoning of one parcel, totaling 80 acres, to R-6, which was and is the current township zoning ordinance for mobile-home parks. Although the 80-acre parcel was rezoned to R-6, the other two parcels remained zoned as A-1 for general agriculture. The development was ultimately not completed in the 1980s.

In 2008, and again in 2015, the township adopted new Master Plans, which referred to the previous litigation from the 1970s. Both Master Plans stated:

In Area C, in 1977, Ann Arbor Township accepted a court ordered mobile home park zoning on the north side of Warren Road, east of US-23. The Township will permit the mobile home park to develop as directed by the court's decision. Other areas of the Master Plan have been structured with this planning decision in place.

Nevertheless, in 2020, Sun ACQ, LLC, submitted a preliminary site plan to the township, seeking approvals for a 499-unit, mobile-home park, which would be served by an on-site "community well and private wastewater treatment plan." The township rejected the preliminary site plan for a development-known as Arbor Oaks Manufactured Home Park-on the property in question. In rejecting the site plan, and indeed refusing to consider the site plan, the township noted that one parcel was zoned R-6, but the other two parcels were zoned A-1, and the township asserted that plaintiffs needed to seek rezoning before a site plan would be considered. Notably, for the first time, the township also disavowed the continued validity of the 1975 Judgment, stating that it was now the township's position that "the 1975 Judgment is not valid and is unenforceable." In 2020, the township also amended its zoning ordinances with regard to mobile-home parks and the site-plan approvals required for mobile-home parks.

In February 2021, plaintiffs filed suit against the township, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, their complaint alleged three counts: (1) a request for declaratory relief to the effect that the 1975 Judgment remained valid and that the township should be estopped from claiming the judgment was not enforceable; (2) a due-process claim involving the assertion that the 2020 revisions to the township's ordinance violated the procedures for approval of mobile-home parks as set forth in The Mobile Home Commission Act (MHCA), MCL 125.2301 et seq., and constituted part of a "long-term pattern and practice" by the township in discriminating against mobile-home parks; and (3) a claim that the township's refusal to comply with the 1975 Judgment amounted to contempt of court.

Over plaintiffs' objections, the trial court allowed intervenors-the Village of Barton Hills and the Barton Hills Maintenance Corporation-to intervene in the case. Intervenors maintained that they had a right to intervene because they owned and operated a nearby municipal water supply system, which drew water from an aquifer under plaintiffs' property, and the township would not adequately protect their interests. Alternatively, intervenors asserted that their interest in their water supply provided a basis for permissive intervention, which they asserted would not unduly delay proceedings or prejudice the rights of the original parties. In allowing intervention, the trial

3

court concluded that intervenors had an interest that may not be adequately protected by the township.

Plaintiffs moved the trial court for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (C)(10). In particular, plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to summary disposition to the effect (1) that the 1975 Judgment remained in full force and effect and (2) that the 2020 amendments to the township's zoning ordinance were unenforceable because the amendment violated the MHCA. In asserting that the 1975 Judgment remained valid, plaintiffs more specifically argued (1) that the judgment did not expire, (2) that the township waived any claim regarding the validity of the judgment, (3) that laches did not bar plaintiffs from seeking to enforce the judgment because there was no inexcusable delay and no prejudice to the township, (4) that the judgment was not an impermissible exercise of legislative authority by the judiciary, and (5) that collateral estoppel and res judicata precluded the township from attacking the validity of the 1975 Judgment.

In response, the township asserted that plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition should be denied and that the trial court should instead enter judgment in favor of the township under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Most relevant to the issues on appeal, the township asserted that laches applied to bar enforcement of the 1975 Judgment or that a statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' attempt to enforce the judgment. Relating to plaintiffs' challenges to the 2020 zoning amendments, the township also asserted that plaintiffs' claim in Count II related to the MHCA should be dismissed because plaintiffs lacked standing and they were effectively seeking an advisory opinion to which they were not entitled. Intervenors filed a brief supporting the township's position regarding summary disposition.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition, and instead granted summary disposition to the township under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Regarding the 1975 Judgment, the trial court concluded that laches barred plaintiffs' attempts to enforce the judgment at this time. The trial court reasoned:

The Township's laches argument and I'll say further and I don't agree that every declaratory judgment would

...