Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

GEORGE A. GALLAGHER III, Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee, and DAVID FERGUSON, SHARON FERGUSONMILLER, SUZAN INMAN, JEANNE JOHNSON, SANDRA KIPP, JAMES DILLARD, DAVID FERGUSON, and the RONALD FERGUSON EDUCATION TRUST, Intervening Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants/Third-Party Defendants, v RICHFIELD EQUITIES, LLC and RICHFIELD LANDFILL, INC, d/b/a GENESEE LANDFILL, Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs/Third-Party PlaintiffsAppellants. and KITTREDGE KLAPP, the DANIEL FERGUSON SUBTRUST, and RONALD FERGUSON, Third-Party Defendants.

UNPUBLISHED April 14, 2009

No. 283246 Genesee Circuit Court LC No. 05-082225-CK

Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Fort Hood and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendants/counter-plaintiffs/third-party plaintiffs Richfield Equities and Richfield Landfill ("defendants") appeal as of right a final judgment in favor of plaintiff/counter-defendant George A Gallagher III ("plaintiff"). The judgment is based on the trial court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaims against plaintiff. This matter arises out of defendants' purchase in -1-

2001 of a troubled landfill in Genesee County. The landfill had a history of operating problems, and defendants were aware that it was in bad condition when they purchased it, but the landfill's problems turned out to be more significant than defendants knew when they closed on the purchase. Upon incurring significant environmental remediation expenses, defendants stopped making payments to plaintiff, whereupon plaintiff commenced this suit. Defendants counterclaimed for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and statutory liability pursuant to the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.101 et seq. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. A trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Coblentz v City of Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567; 719 NW2d 73 (2006). A motion decided on the basis of MCR 2.116(C)(10) entails consideration of all evidence and all legitimate inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; summary disposition is warranted where the evidence shows no genuine issue as to any material fact. Id., 567-568. We also review de novo as a question of law the proper interpretation of both contracts and statutes. Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n, IAFF Local 344 v City of Detroit, 482 Mich 18, 28; 753 NW2d 579 (2008). After reviewing the record, we find the trial court's factual determinations entirely supported by the evidence. Originally, plaintiff's father and Ronald Ferguson each owned 50 percent of the shares of Richfield Landfill, Inc., which in turn was the corporate entity that owned the landfill. Ferguson was the president of the landfill until his death. Until he died, he "ran everything." The landfill closed in 1991,1 and Ferguson died in 1992. At that time, Ferguson's interest passed to his trust. Roughly contemporaneously with Ferguson's death, plaintiff purchased his father's interest and became president, apparently just because someone needed to. Because the landfill was closed, plaintiff believed that he only had two responsibilities: to maintain the fence around the landfill, which was frequently damaged by trespassers, and to maintain the level of leachate in the landfill. Particularly relevant to this case, leachate is a hazardous substance that is created when water

Download GEORGE A GALLAGHER III V RICHFIELD EQUITIES LLC.pdf

Michigan Law