Case ID: nw2d_919/html/0273-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Ann LAMKIN and Steve Lamkin, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Eugene HARTMEIER, Cynthia Hartmeier, Kevin Hartmeier, Dennis McComb, Gloria McComb, Daniel Engram, Danielle Engram, James Beaudoin, Cecile Laudenslager, Angela Christie, Kimberly Kraska, Joan Beaudoin, and Damon Hartmeier, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and Aaron Kirby, Denise Engram, Deann Engram, Derek Engram, and Catherine Barrett, Defendants-Appellees, and Ronald Thybault and the Estate of Mary Weckeser, Defendants.
    SC: 154563 COA: 326986
    Supreme Court of Michigan.
    November 7, 2018
    Order
   By order of May 2, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the applications for leave to appeal as cross-appellants were held in abeyance pending the decision in Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v. Van Dyke SC Properties, LLC (Docket No. 153979). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on March 19, 2018, 501 Mich. 192, 912 N.W.2d 161 (2018), the applications are again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We do not disturb the remand to Livingston Circuit Court on the issue of nuisance. We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration as to whether each defendant established a prescriptive easement in light of Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v. Van Dyke SC Properties, LLC , 501 Mich. 192, 912 N.W.2d 161 (2018), and for reconsideration of the scope of each easement based on the manner of use by which the easement was acquired and the manner of the previous enjoyment, see Heydon v. MediaOne , 275 Mich.App. 267, 271, 739 N.W.2d 373 (2007). In all other respects, the applications are DENIED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.