Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JEFFREY SOTELO, SUSAN SOTELO, WALTER J. VANDER WALL, individually and as Trustee, and PHYLLIS A. VANDER WALL, individually and as Trustee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v TOWNSHIP OF GRANT, Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee.

FOR PUBLICATION February 21, 2003 9:10 a.m.

No. 238690 Newaygo Circuit Court LC No. 00-018133-AW Updated Copy April 25, 2003

Before: Neff, P.J., and Bandstra and Kelly, JJ. BANDSTRA, J. Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's opinion and order finding that plaintiffs' division of property violated the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.101 et seq., and granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. We reverse and remand. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Facts The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute and were summarized by the trial court in its opinion: Prior to July 15, 1999, the land involved in this dispute was divided into two adjacent parcels in the Township of Grant: Jeffrey and Susan Sotelo owned a 2.35 acre parcel of land . . . and, immediately to the South, Robert Filut owned a 7.63 acre parcel of land ("Filut parcel"). On July 15, 1999, the size of the Sotelo parcel was increased when Filut conveyed 3.25 acres from his parcel to the Sotelos. After this conveyance, the reconfigured Sotelo parcel [("Sotelo parcel")] consisted of 5.6 acres, and the Filut parcel was reduced to 4.38 acres. By deeds dated July 15, 1999, the remaining portion of the Filut parcel was divided into four separate parcels which were more than one acre in size, and

-1-


by deeds dated August 10, 1999, the Sotelo parcel was divided into four separate parcels which were more than one acre in size. The property owners structured the size of the resulting divisions in an apparent attempt to comply with the Township's zoning ordinance that required a minimum parcel size of 1 acre. However, they made the divisions of land without first obtaining the approval from the Township as required by the Section 109 of the LDA. MCL[ ] 560.109[ ]. The Township informed the property owners that they were in violation of the LDA, and the owners responded by requesting the Township to approve the divisions previously made from their land. This request was extensively reviewed by the Township; but, ultimately, all the divisions were denied by a resolution passed on July 27, 2000, because the Township concluded that the divisions made within these parcels exceeded the number allowed under the LDA. The plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit to compel the township to approve all of the land divisions. While this lawsuit was pending, the issues involved in the case were reduced to deciding the legality of the divisions from the reconfigured Sotelo parcel, because the parties agreed that the transfer of a portion of the Filut parcel to the adjacent Sotelo parcel and the divisions made from the reconfigured Filut parcel were consistent with Michigan law and the Township's ordinances. Analysis This case involves interpretation of a statute and a decision on a motion for summary disposition, both of which are reviewed de novo on appeal. In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich 396, 413; 596 NW2d 164 (1999); Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). The LDA requires a municipality to approve a division of property if the requirements of

Download 20030221_C238690_33_38O.238690.OPN.COA.PDF

Michigan Law