Case ID: nw2d_927/html/0224-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark GOTTLEBER and Rose Gottleber, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, Defendant-Appellant.
    SC: 158301 COA: 336011
    Supreme Court of Michigan.
    May 28, 2019
    Order
   On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of an argument made by the defendant but not directly addressed by that court during its initial review of this case regarding whether the defendant had a legal duty or obligation to continue pumping and draining water on its land in order to sustain a particular groundwater level for the benefit of the plaintiffs' property. If it is determined on remand that the defendant owed no such duty or obligation, the Court of Appeals should also consider whether the defendant "abused its legitimate powers" when it took "affirmative actions" in the absence of any duty or obligation that potentially were "directly aimed at the plaintiff[s'] property." See Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich. App. 264, 295, 769 N.W.2d 234 (2009). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.