Stevens v. Creek, Docket No. 59458
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Before DANHOF; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 121 Mich.App. 503,328 N.W.2d 672 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 59458 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1983 |
| Parties | Janet STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hugh CREEK, Defendant-Appellee. 121 Mich.App. 503, 328 N.W.2d 672, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,418 |
Page 672
v.
Hugh CREEK, Defendant-Appellee.
121 Mich.App. 503, 328 N.W.2d 672, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,418
Decided Nov. 18, 1982.
Released for Publication Jan. 24, 1983.
Page 673
[121 MICHAPP 505] Michael E. Nye, Hillsdale, for plaintiff-appellant.
Fry, Barker & Hayne by James D. Hayne, Hillsdale, for defendant-appellee.
Page 674
Before DANHOF, C.J., and J.H. GILLIS and KNOBLOCK, * JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's dismissal of her action under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (EPA), M.C.L. Sec. 691.1201 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 14.528(201) et seq., and from the court's denial of her claim for treble damages pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 600.2919; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2919.
Plaintiff is the owner of an approximately 30-acre parcel of property which adjoins the southern boundary of defendant's property. The boundary line between plaintiff's and defendant's property is located in a heavily wooded area.
In December, 1978, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendant had trespassed upon her property and cut down and removed timber therefrom. Plaintiff sought an injunction against defendant's continued trespass and requested an award of treble damages for defendant's alleged wilful and voluntary removal of timber from her [121 MICHAPP 506] property, M.C.L. Sec. 600.2919; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2919. Plaintiff's first amended complaint also sought damages for the diminution of the value of her property due to defendant's entry and removal of timber. Plaintiff's second amended complaint added a third count alleging that defendant's acts constituted a violation of the EPA. Plaintiff requested that her property be restored to its condition prior to the trespass.
Following a bench trial, the court found that a trespass had occurred, granted plaintiff's request for an injunction and awarded plaintiff actual damages in the amount of $120 for defendant's removal of four face cords of wood from plaintiff's property. Plaintiff's claim for treble damages was denied. As to Count III, the court dismissed the claim on the basis that it stated no cause of action, finding that the EPA "does not apply because there was no public trust involved in this matter". Plaintiff appeals.
The first issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the EPA was not intended to protect natural resources on land in which there is no public trust or public right to user.
Const.1963, art. 4, Sec. 52 provides:
"The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction."
In response, the Legislature enacted the EPA, formally known as the Thomas J. Anderson, Gordon Rockwell Environmental Protection Act of 1970, M.C.L. Sec. 691.1201 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 14.528(201) et [121 MICHAPP 507] seq. Section 2 of the act, M.C.L. Sec. 691.1202; M.S.A. Sec. 14.528(202), provides that a party may bring an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cipri v. BELLINGHAM FOODS, INC., Docket No. 197678.
...of a natural resource is found, "[r]estoration of the natural habitat is a proper remedy under the [M]EPA." Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich. App. 503, 508, 328 N.W.2d 672 (1982); see also Eyde v. Michigan, 82 Mich.App. 531, 538-540, 267 N.W.2d 442 On the other hand, the former Michigan Environme......
-
Hunt v. Hadden, Case Number 14–10713
...920 (1975) (noting that a good faith and honest belief is a good defense to treble damages under trespass statute); Stevens v. Creek , 121 Mich.App. 503, 509, 328 N.W.2d 672, 675 (1982) (Treble damages under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2919"are not designed to be imposed in the absence of active......
-
Kenneth Henes Special Proj. v. Continental Biomass, No. 98-CV-72966-DT.
...land without permission of the owner as that statute was construed by the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich.App. 503, 328 N.W.2d 672 The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the court in Stevens declared that the t......
-
Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural Resources Com'n, Docket No. 106755
...claims is therefore required. See State Highway Comm. v. Vanderkloot, 392 Mich. 159, 178-184, 220 N.W.2d 416 (1974); Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich.App. 503, 506-507, 328 N.W.2d 672 We are convinced that the work done at Highland was of such a nature that amendment of the park's master plan was......
-
Cipri v. BELLINGHAM FOODS, INC., Docket No. 197678.
...of a natural resource is found, "[r]estoration of the natural habitat is a proper remedy under the [M]EPA." Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich. App. 503, 508, 328 N.W.2d 672 (1982); see also Eyde v. Michigan, 82 Mich.App. 531, 538-540, 267 N.W.2d 442 On the other hand, the former Michigan Environme......
-
Hunt v. Hadden, Case Number 14–10713
...920 (1975) (noting that a good faith and honest belief is a good defense to treble damages under trespass statute); Stevens v. Creek , 121 Mich.App. 503, 509, 328 N.W.2d 672, 675 (1982) (Treble damages under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2919"are not designed to be imposed in the absence of active......
-
Kenneth Henes Special Proj. v. Continental Biomass, 98-CV-72966-DT.
...land without permission of the owner as that statute was construed by the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich.App. 503, 328 N.W.2d 672 The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the court in Stevens declared that the t......
-
Highland Recreation Defense Foundation v. Natural Resources Com'n, Docket No. 106755
...claims is therefore required. See State Highway Comm. v. Vanderkloot, 392 Mich. 159, 178-184, 220 N.W.2d 416 (1974); Stevens v. Creek, 121 Mich.App. 503, 506-507, 328 N.W.2d 672 We are convinced that the work done at Highland was of such a nature that amendment of the park's master plan was......