Court Opinion

ID: 9396007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 05:06:45.786775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.452091
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                   revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

LINDA LANE, CHARLES R. DEVRIES, and                                  UNPUBLISHED
THOMAS J. LANE,                                                      May 18, 2023

                Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-
                Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v                                                                    No. 360941
                                                                     Kent Circuit Court
GRATTAN TOWNSHIP and GREGG CONVERSE,                                 LC No. 20-003959-AW

                Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs-
                Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       Plaintiffs Linda Lane, Charles R. Devries, and Thomas J. Lane,1 appeal as of right the order
denying their partial motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (10), and
granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Grattan Township (“the township”) and
Gregg Converse under MCR 2.116(I)(2). On cross-appeal, defendants appeal as of right the order
denying their motion for attorney fees. We affirm.

                  I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Linda and Charles own several parcels of land near Big Crooked Lake in Grattan
Township, Michigan. These include one undeveloped, 3.62-acre parcel (Parcel A) and two small
lakefront parcels. Thomas owns an adjacent parcel (Parcel B). This case arises from plaintiffs’
attempt to change boundary lines and transfer ownership of Parcels A and B. Plaintiffs wanted to
transfer a portion of Parcel A to Parcel B, effectively reducing the size of Parcel A and enlarging
the size of Parcel B. To accomplish this goal, plaintiffs filed a quitclaim deed purporting to change

1
    Charles and Linda are husband and wife. Thomas is Linda’s brother.

                                                 -1-
the boundary lines of Parcels A and B. The deed also apparently conveyed ownership of a portion
of Parcel A from Linda and Charles to Linda, Charles, and Thomas.

       Sometime after they filed the quitclaim deed, plaintiffs submitted to the township a “Land
Division/Combination Application” (the “land-division application”), seeking approval of their
boundary line adjustments. In reviewing the application, the township asked plaintiffs for a
number of documents, including surveys of the two lakefront parcels belonging to Linda and
Charles. Believing the lakefront parcels were irrelevant to their proposed changes to Parcels A
and B, plaintiffs never produced these surveys.

        Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, asking the trial court for declaratory relief that the transfer of
land was valid under Michigan’s Land Division Act (the “LDA”), MCL 560.101 et seq., and for a
writ of mandamus compelling the township to act on their land-division application. Defendants
filed a counterclaim, which included a demand for attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs moved for
partial summary disposition, again contending their actions were permissible under the LDA and
that the LDA preempted any local ordinances. Defendants responded, arguing they were entitled
to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2). In their view, plaintiffs failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies before seeking relief in the trial court. They also challenged plaintiffs’
assertion the LDA preempted their local ordinances. During the pendency of these events, the
township enacted a new zoning ordinance, entitling the township to attorney fees “[s]hould the
Township prevail in a Kent Circuit Court lawsuit.” Grattan Township Zoning Ordinance,
§ 19.07(G).

         The trial court entered an order denying plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary disposition
and granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor. The trial court reasoned that plaintiffs
failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and that the LDA does not preempt local
ordinances. The trial court ordered plaintiffs to recombine Parcels A and B to their original state,
i.e., to what they were before the quitclaim deed was filed. It further granted defendants’ motion
for costs, but denied it as to attorney fees. This appeal followed.

                                          II. PREEMPTION

       Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in concluding the LDA did not preempt the township’s
land-division ordinances. We disagree.

                                   A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

        A trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Heaton
v Benton Constr Co, 286 Mich App 528, 531; 780 NW2d 618 (2009). Plaintiffs moved for
summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (10). A motion for summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(9) “tests the sufficiency of a defendant’s pleadings.” Slater v Ann Arbor Pub Sch
Bd of Ed, 250 Mich App 419, 425; 648 NW2d 205 (2002). A trial court “properly grants summary
disposition where a defendant fails to plead a valid defense to a claim.” Id. In deciding a (C)(9)
motion for summary disposition, “a court may look only to the parties’ pleadings,” which “include
only a complaint, a cross-claim, a counterclaim, a third-party complaint, an answer to any of these,
and a reply to an answer.” Village of Dimondale v Grable, 240 Mich App 553, 565; 618 NW2d

                                                  -2-
23 (2000). Further, “[a] motion for summary disposition is not a responsive pleading under MCR
2.110(A).” Id.

       A (C)(10) motion for summary disposition examines the factual sufficiency of a complaint
and should be granted “[w]here the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding
any material fact.” Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). “In evaluating
a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a trial court considers affidavits,
pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties . . . in the light
most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Id.

        Defendants also moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2), which is
appropriate “[i]f it appears to the court that the opposing party, rather than the moving party, is
entitled to judgment . . . .” MCR 2.116(I)(2).

       The trial court did not state the specific subsection under which it denied plaintiffs’ partial
motion for summary disposition. However, it apparently resolved this issue under subsection
(C)(9) because it solely analyzed the parties’ legal arguments, and it did not engage in a fact-
balancing analysis required of a motion for summary disposition under subsection (C)(10).
Therefore, we review this issue through the lens of a (C)(9) motion for summary disposition.

        This issue also involves the interpretation of statute and local ordinances—specifically,
whether the LDA preempts the township’s land-division ordinances. “Whether a state statutory
scheme preempts a local regulation is a question of statutory interpretation and, thus, a question of
law that we review de novo.” Capital Area Dist Library v Mich Open Carry, Inc, 298 Mich App
220, 227; 826 NW2d 736 (2012). “When courts interpret statutes, they must first look to the
specific statutory language to determine the intent of the Legislature, and if the language is clear
and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute reflects the legislative intent and judicial
construction is not permitted.” Grand Rapids v Brookstone Capital, LLC, 334 Mich App 452, 459;
965 NW2d 232 (2020).

                                    B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

        Municipalities are generally free to regulate matters of local concern unless state law
preempts local regulation. DeRuiter v Twp of Byron, 505 Mich 130, 140; 949 NW2d 91 (2020).
“A state statute preempts regulation by an inferior government when the local regulation directly
conflicts with the statute or when the statute completely occupies the regulatory field.” USA Cash
#£1, Inc v City of Saginaw, 285 Mich App 262, 267; 776 NW2d 346 (2009). Plaintiffs argue there
is a direct conflict between the LDA and the township’s land-division ordinances. “[A] direct
conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance prohibits
what the statute permits.” DeRuiter, 505 Mich at 140 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

       At issue are two different definitions of the term “division.” The LDA defines “division”
as:

       [T]he partitioning or splitting of a parcel or tract of land by the proprietor thereof
       or by his or her heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors,
       or assigns for the purpose of sale, or lease of more than 1 year, or of building
       development that results in 1 or more parcels of less than 40 acres or the equivalent,

                                                 -3-
       and that satisfies the requirements of sections 108 and 109. Division does not
       include a property transfer between 2 or more adjacent parcels, if the property
       taken from 1 parcel is added to an adjacent parcel; and any resulting parcel shall
       not be considered a building site unless the parcel conforms to the requirements of
       this act or the requirements of an applicable local ordinance. [MCL 560.102(d)
       (emphasis added).]

       The definition of “division” in the land-division ordinances is:

       [T]he dividing, partitioning or splitting of a parcel or tract of land by the owner or
       proprietor thereof or by his or her heirs, executors, administrators, legal
       representatives, successors or assigns for the purpose of sale, transfer, parcel or lot
       creation, or lease of more than one year, or of building development that results in
       one or more parcels. Division or land division also includes the creation or
       establishing of an access easement or other access to land, and the dividing,
       partitioning or splitting of a parcel or tract of land for the purpose of adjusting or
       relocating one or more boundary lines, or transfer of land between lots or parcels.
       [Grattan Township Land Division and Access Ordinance, § 2.4 (emphasis added).]

        Again, to determine whether there is a direct conflict between a statute and an ordinance,
courts should consider whether “the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance
prohibits what the statute permits.” DeRuiter, 505 Mich at 140 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Plaintiffs argue the ordinance is preempted because it prohibits what the statute permits.
They opine the statute’s definition of the term “division” allows the “unrestricted transfer of land”
between parcels; but, by defining “division” differently, the ordinance prohibits such transfers.

       We disagree with plaintiffs’ suggestion that MCL 560.102(d) permits plaintiffs to make
“unrestricted transfer[s] of land.” Indeed, one of the stated purposes of the LDA is to ensure “the
orderly layout and use of land.” Title of 1967 PA 288. Plaintiffs’ assertion the LDA unilaterally
permits “unrestricted transfer[s] of land” runs contrary to that purpose.

        We also disagree that a definition is a sufficient basis to decide “what the statute permits.”
The purpose of MCL 560.102(d) is not to describe the strictures of that particular scheme, but to
offer the reader some context for the statute. In practice, this means that when a reader encounters
a particular term in the substantive portion of the statutory scheme, they may insert the referenced
definition to read the term in context. Here, the issue is the definition of the word “division.” It
is an analytical reach to suggest MCL 560.102(d) explicitly permits the “unrestricted transfer of
land” because the purpose of that subsection is to provide the reader a greater understanding of
“division” in context of the statutory scheme.

        Other than the definitional section, plaintiffs cite no statutory provision prohibiting
“property transfer[s] between 2 or more adjacent parcels.” A locality is given broad regulatory
authority and, as such, is permitted to add conditions beyond what is required by statute, so long
as the conditions do not contradict the statute. DeRuiter, 505 Mich at 144-145; Charter Twp of
Delta v Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 263; 351 NW2d 831 (1984). The LDA has many requirements
pertaining to the “division” of property. See, e.g, MCL 560.108. But, those requirements are
inapplicable to plaintiffs’ property transfer because there is nothing in the LDA which specifically

                                                 -4-
regulates this transfer of land. By contrast, the quitclaim deed is contemplated by the ordinance
because it involves the “transfer of land between lots or parcels.” Grattan Township Land Division
and Access Ordinance, § 2.4. Obviously, the language of the ordinance exceeds the language of
the statute. This is permissible because, as discussed above, the LDA does not prohibit transfers
of this nature.

        In sum, plaintiffs incorrectly suggest the LDA permits the “unrestricted transfer of lands.”
And, the statute does not preempt the ordinance. Rather, the statute defines the term “division” so
it is understood in the context of the statutory scheme. Plaintiffs do not point to any substantive
use of the term “division” which contradicts the township’s interpretation. Townships are free to
enact regulations which exceed the language of a statute. Although the LDA uses the term
“division” in a more limited fashion, that does not mean the township could not enact a broader
definition of the term. Because plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the land-division
ordinance does not apply to them, we reject plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary.

                              III. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

       Plaintiffs next argue the trial court incorrectly concluded they failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies. In their view, the trial court failed to recognize that their land-division
application was complete, and therefore reviewable by the township. Plaintiffs claim that, because
the township failed to timely review their land-division application, they were not subject to the
exhaustion requirements of the land-division ordinance. We disagree.

                                  A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

        As discussed, plaintiffs moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9)
and (10), but the trial court did not specify the subsection under which it denied the motion. The
trial court resolved plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition, in part, because plaintiffs failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies and no exception existed to circumvent the necessity of
seeking administrative remedies. A dismissal on the basis of the failure to exhaust administrative
remedies is essentially a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because a circuit court lacks jurisdiction
over a matter which could have been resolved through administrative channels. See Connell v
Lima Twp, 336 Mich App 263, 282; 970 NW2d 354 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted)
(“As this Court has repeatedly recognized, when an administrative scheme of relief exists an
individual must exhaust those remedies before a circuit court has jurisdiction.”). Neither the trial
court nor the parties made this distinction. And, at no point in the lower court proceedings did the
trial court explicitly consider that it might lack jurisdiction over this case.

        Although the parties did not present this argument as a “jurisdictional” issue, a court’s
jurisdiction over a matter is always at issue. Clohset v No Name Corp, 302 Mich App 550, 560;
840 NW2d 375 (2013) (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted) (“All courts must, upon
challenge, or even sua sponte, confirm that subject-matter jurisdiction exists.”). Therefore, we
must consider the issue through this lens. Jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo. PIC
Maintenance, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 293 Mich App 403, 407; 809 NW2d 669 (2011). “[T]his
Court must determine whether the affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions,
and documentary evidence, demonstrate a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (quotation
marks, alterations, and citation omitted).

                                                 -5-
        Plaintiffs also argue on appeal the trial court incorrectly found their land-division
application was complete. Unlike the legal question of jurisdiction, the question of whether the
application was complete is a factual question subject to analysis under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Again, “[i]n evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a trial
court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the
parties . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Maiden, 461 Mich at
120. Under the burden-shifting framework of this rule,

       [T]he moving party has the initial burden of supporting its position by affidavits,
       depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence. The burden then shifts to
       the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Where
       the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue rests on a nonmoving party, the
       nonmoving party may not rely on mere allegations or denials in pleadings, but must
       go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of
       material fact exists. If the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence
       establishing the existence of a material factual dispute, the motion is properly
       granted. [Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362-363; 547 NW2d 314
       (1996) (citations omitted).]

                                   B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

       “[W]hen an administrative scheme of relief exists an individual must exhaust those
remedies before a circuit court has jurisdiction.” Connell, 336 Mich App at 282. “The doctrine
of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where an administrative agency provides a
remedy, a party must seek such relief before petitioning the court.” Cummins v Robinson Twp,
283 Mich App 677, 691; 770 NW2d 421 (2009). “The converse, however, is that where the
administrative appellate body cannot provide the relief sought, the doctrine does not apply.” Id.

       In Grattan Township, local ordinance regulates the process an applicant must undergo to
receive approval of a land division. The relevant ordinances state, in part:

               4.1     A proposed land division shall be filed with the administrator and
       shall include the following:

                                             * * *

              (g) Other information reasonably required by the administrator in order to
       determine whether the proposed land division or creation of land access qualifies
       for approval, including, though not limited to, a survey required by the
       administrator in order to verify the accuracy or completeness of the land
       descriptions provided for parent parcels, parent tracts, resulting parcels and access
       easements or other means of access.

               4.2   A proposed division shall not be considered filed with the
       Township, nor shall the time period stated in subsection 5.2 commence, until all of
       the requirements for an application for land division and access approval have been
       complied with, including all required approvals of private roads or other access,
       site development plans, lot area, lot width, access to bodies of water and land

                                               -6-
       divisions for certain large-scale residential developments, under the terms of the
       Township Zoning Ordinance. [Grattan Township Land Division and Access
       Ordinance, §§ 4.1(g) and 4.2.]

       Section 5 of the township’s land-division ordinances explain the process after the applicant
has submitted their documentation:

              5.1     A proposed land division shall be approved by the administrator
       upon satisfaction of all of the following requirements:

               (a) The application requirements of Section 4.

                                               * * *

               (g) All applicable required Township approvals of private roads or other
       access; site development plans; lot area; lot width; planned unit development
       approval of certain large-scale residential developments; and access to bodies of
       water, all under the terms of the Township Zoning Ordinance.

                5.2    If all of the requirements of Section 5 have been satisfied, the
       administrator shall approve or disapprove a proposed land division within 45 days
       after the complete filing of the proposed division with the administrator, including
       the filing of evidence of all other Township approvals required by the terms of this
       Ordinance. The administrator shall provide the person who filed the application
       written notice whether the application is approved or disapproved and, if
       disapproved, all the reasons for the disapproval.

                                               * * *

               5.4     An applicant aggrieved by the decision of the administrator may,
       within 30 days of the decision, file a written appeal of the decision to the Township
       Board, which shall consider and decide the appeal by a majority vote of the
       members present and voting at a public meeting. At least ten days’ written notice
       of the date, time and place of the meeting at which the appeal is to be considered
       shall be given to the applicant by regular, first-class mail, directed to the applicant’s
       address as shown in the application or in the written appeal. The Township Board
       may affirm or reverse the decision of the administrator, in whole or in part, and its
       decision shall be final.

                                               * * *

              5.6     No parcel (including a remnant parcel) shall be created that does not
       fully comply with the minimum lot size, access, lot width to depth ratio
       requirements, and other dimensional requirements of the Grattan Township Zoning
       Ordinance, as amended. [Grattan Township Land Division and Access Ordinance,
       §§ 5.1(a) and (g), 5.2, 5.4, and 5.6.]

                                                 -7-
        Plainly, the township’s ordinances provide an administrative process to approve or deny
land division applications. There is also a process to appeal a denial of a land division application.
Accordingly, plaintiffs needed to avail themselves of this process before seeking relief in the trial
court. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint on this basis.

       On appeal, plaintiffs appear to acknowledge the above process and that there are
administrative remedies when a land division request is denied. However, they contend they could
not avail themselves of the administrative process because the township never considered their
land-division application “complete.” They argue that summary disposition was inappropriate
because there remained a genuine question of fact whether their application was complete.

        In the proceedings below, this argument specifically concerned the township’s request that
plaintiffs produce surveys and other documentation related to the two lakefront parcels owned by
Linda and Charles. The issue of the two lakefront parcels was not addressed in plaintiffs’ motion
for partial summary disposition. In their response to plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition,
defendants contended that they were never obligated to review plaintiffs’ application because the
application was not complete. They said:

       The Township required surveys for two lakefront parcels that the Township
       believed had been joined with [Parcel A] and [Parcel B]. The [township’s] Land-
       division ordinance requires an applicant for a land division permit to submit a
       tentative parcel map, which includes the proposed lines and dimensions of each
       resulting parcel, and an accurate legal description of each resulting parcel.

The parties discussed the issue at oral argument, after which the trial court offered the parties an
opportunity for further briefing. Plaintiffs did not respond with any brief addressing this issue.
Rather, they submitted to the trial court an affidavit by their attorney, which asserted, in part:

           3. On May 10, 2020, [defendants’ attorney] demanded that surveys for
              additional properties be submitted . . . and again on Mary [sic] 29,
              2020 . . . .

           4. On May 11, 2020, [plaintiffs’ attorney] responded by e[-]mail to
              [defendants’ attorney] . . . informing him that there was no basis for asking
              for the additional surveys. The e[-]mail concluded with the following:

                       I look forward to your response. If there is a provision in the zoning
                       ordinance that brings additional parcels into consideration of a
                       boundary line adjustment between two parcels, I would appreciate
                       being advised of that.

           5. Neither [defendants’ attorney] or [sic] the Township has ever responded to
              the request to define the statute that provided for the additional request.

           6. On June 5, 2020, I succinctly wrote in correspondence to [defendants’
              attorney] that the Township had everything it needed—specifically
              dispelling the notion that the Township was entitled to review all properties
              owned by a taxpayer when the only two properties involved had already

                                                 -8-
               been submitted. I concluded that letter with the following statement
               indicating that everything that was necessary for the application had been
               submitted:

                       In short, it appears to me that the Township has everything that it
                       needs and that this should have been approved through a simple
                       administrative approval—something that I would have anticipated
                       in most other townships.

           7. To date, the Township has not provided a reference to any section in the
              ordinance that allows additional information to be required, nor provided
              any justification as to their ultra vires demand for additional surveys.

                                                   * * *

           11. Mr. [Gregg] Converse [the township’s zoning administrator] could not
               identify any incompleteness in the Application. He could not identify a
               definition of “adjoining” in the Township’s Land Division and Access
               Ordinance. He advanced the common understanding of “adjoining” as
               meaning parcels that touched each other.

           12. [Converse] confirmed that “both lakefront parcels” (referred to in
               [defendants’ attorney’s] e[-]mail of April 15, 2020 was not adjoining any of
               the parcels referenced in the Application [sic].

           13. Unfortunately, the Township’s approach lends credibility to the Plaintiffs’
               perception that all the Township is looking for is methods to delay the
               Plaintiffs and to increase their costs while seeking to create a façade of
               plausible deniability for the Township’s motivation.

Attached to the affidavit were some of the e-mail exchanges between the parties’ attorneys
discussing the township’s request for documentation related to the lakefront lots. These exhibits
did not include Converse’s deposition testimony, which presumably is the source of the referenced
statements.

       Defendants filed a supplemental briefing that, again, argued plaintiffs’ application was not
complete because they failed to submit any information related to the lakefront parcels. They cited
Grattan Township Zoning Ordinance, § 4.04(D), which provides, in part:

               [I]n all zoning districts, if two or more lots or combination of lots or portions
       of lots are located adjacent to each other or have contiguous frontage and are held
       or owned in the same or single ownership of record, and if all or part of such lots
       do not satisfy the minimum requirements for lot width, lot area, street frontage,
       water frontage, or other dimensions, such lots shall be automatically combined for
       zoning purposes so as to create one conforming lot or so as to create one
       nonconforming lot that is more conforming than the individual, smaller
       nonconforming lots. Once nonconforming lots or parcels of land are combined
       pursuant to this Section D or by deed, land contract or other written instrument,

                                                 -9-
       they shall not thereafter be split, re-divided or otherwise reduced in area unless all
       of the resulting lots or parcels of land comply with the lot area requirements of the
       zoning district in which such lots or parcels of land are located.

According to defendants, to properly assess plaintiffs’ land-division application, they needed
information about the two lakefront parcels to determine whether these parcels were automatically
combined with Parcels A and B. Attached to defendants’ supplemental brief were maps of the
relevant parcels and the applicable ordinances.

        To prevail on this issue, plaintiffs needed to show a genuine question of fact whether
evidence of the lakefront parcels was necessary to their land division application. Quinto, 451
Mich at 362-363. To that end, plaintiffs only produced their attorney’s affidavit. Generally-
speaking, an affidavit is a document that courts may use to determine whether there is a question
of fact. Maiden, 461 Mich at 120. However, the affidavit by plaintiffs’ attorney was an
impermissible use of this rule. Plaintiffs filed the affidavit to both make a legal argument and
offer the court documentary evidence of a question of fact. “But it is well settled that an attorney’s
statements and arguments are not evidence.” In re Conservatorship of Brody, 321 Mich App 332,
349; 909 NW2d 849 (2017). Yet, even if this affidavit was evidence, it failed to demonstrate a
question of fact. While plaintiffs’ attorney claimed that evidence of the lakefront parcels was not
relevant and “that the Township had everything it needed” to approve plaintiffs’ application,
plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of the same.

        As the moving party, plaintiffs were required to offer documentary evidence showing no
genuine dispute of fact. Quinto, 451 Mich at 362-363. Plaintiffs failed in this regard, so the burden
never shifted to defendants to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. However, even
if it had shifted, defendants offered documentary proof showing the lakefront parcels may be
joined to Parcels A or B under the township’s ordinances and the trial court was required to view
this evidence in a light most favorable to defendants. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
disregarding plaintiffs’ argument about the completeness of the application because plaintiffs
failed to show a genuine dispute of fact as to this issue.

                                      IV. ATTORNEY FEES

       Defendants argue the trial court abused its discretion in denying the portion of their motion
requesting attorney fees. In their view, they were entitled to attorney fees because plaintiffs’
complaint was frivolous and because the township’s zoning ordinances required the imposition of
attorney fees. We disagree.

                                  A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

        “A trial court’s award of attorney fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs
when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.”
Lakeside Retreats LLC v Camp No Counselors LLC, 340 Mich App 79, 88; 985 NW2d 225 (2022)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s factual
findings. Id. Further, “[a]n error of law necessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Denton v
Dep’t Of Treasury, 317 Mich App 303, 314; 894 NW2d 694 (2016).

                                                -10-
       This issue also involves the interpretation of statute and court rules. As noted earlier, this
Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo, Capital Area Dist Library, 298 Mich
App at 227, reading the statute according to its plain language. Grand Rapids, 334 Mich App at
459. “We use the same rules of interpretation to interpret statutes and court rules.” Lech v
Huntmore Estates Condo Ass’n, 315 Mich App 288, 290; 890 NW2d 378 (2016).

                                     B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

       With respect to attorney fees:

       Michigan follows the “American rule” with respect to the payment of attorney fees
       and costs. Under the American rule, attorney fees generally are not recoverable
       from the losing party as costs in the absence of an exception set forth in a statute or
       court rule expressly authorizing such an award. The American rule is codified at
       MCL 600.2405(6), which provides that among the items that may be taxed and
       awarded as costs are “[a]ny attorney fees authorized by statute or by court rule.”
       The American rule stands in stark contrast to what is commonly referred to as the
       “English rule,” whereby the losing party pays the prevailing party’s costs absent an
       express exception. [Haliw v City of Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706-707; 691
       NW2d 753 (2005).]

       Defendants’ motion cited several authorities in support of their belief they were entitled to
attorney fees and costs. These included MCR 1.109, MCR 2.625, MCL 600.2591, and a newly-
enacted Grattan township ordinance. They again cite these authorities in support of their
arguments on appeal. Each of these authorities is addressed in turn.

                                          1. MCR 2.625

        Defendants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion under MCR 2.625. This
court rule states:

               (A) Right to Costs.

               (1) In General. Costs will be allowed to the prevailing party in an action,
       unless prohibited by statute or by these rules or unless the court directs otherwise,
       for reasons stated in writing and filed in the action.

               (2) Frivolous Claims and Defenses. In an action filed on or after October 1,
       1986, if the court finds on motion of a party that an action or defense was frivolous,
       costs shall be awarded as provided by MCL 600.2591. [MCR 2.625(A).]

        “[T]he term ‘costs’ ordinarily does not encompass attorney fees unless the statute or court
rule specifically defines ‘costs’ as including attorney fees.” Dessart v Burak, 470 Mich 37, 42;
678 NW2d 615 (2004). Because MCR 2.625(A) permits “costs,” but does not include a definition
for “attorney fees,” this court rule is intended to apply to costs only. The trial court awarded
defendants costs. Therefore, defendants’ request for attorney fees under this court rule is
misplaced because only costs are recoverable under the rule, not attorney fees.

                                                -11-
                2. GRATTAN TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE, § 19.09(G)

      Defendants also allege they are entitled to attorney fees under Grattan Township Zoning
Ordinance, § 19.09(G), which provides:

       Should the Township prevail in a Kent Circuit Court lawsuit (either in full or in
       part) or in a municipal civil infraction proceeding in the District Court (either in
       full or in part), then the defendant or defendants (or plaintiff or plaintiffs where the
       Township is a defendant) shall reimburse the Township for its reasonable attorney
       fees and costs pursuant to any such court action or proceeding (including the
       Township’s attorney fees and costs before the court proceedings, during the trial or
       formal hearing stage and through any appeals).

Other than their bare assertion2 that they are entitled to attorney fees under this ordinance,
defendants offer no substantive argument explaining their entitlement under this ordinance. “If a
party fails to adequately brief a position, or support a claim with authority, it is abandoned.”
MOSES Inc v SEMCOG, 270 Mich App 401, 417; 716 NW2d 278 (2006). Defendants have
abandoned this argument for failure to offer any substantive clarification explaining why they are
entitled to attorney fees under the zoning ordinance.

                             3. MCR 1.109(E) AND MCL 600.2591

      Finally, defendants claim they are entitled to attorney fees under MCR 1.109(E) and MCL
600.2591. MCR 1.109(E) states in relevant part:

               (5) Effect of Signature. The signature of a person filing a document, whether
       or not represented by an attorney, constitutes a certification by the signer that:

               (a) he or she has read the document;

               (b) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after
               reasonable inquiry, the document is well grounded in fact and is warranted
               by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or
               reversal of existing law; and

               (c) the document is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to
               harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of
               litigation.

              (6) Sanctions for Violation. If a document is signed in violation of this rule,
       the court, on the motion of a party or on its own initiative, shall impose upon the

2
 Defendants’ reply brief on appeal offers some argument explaining why they were entitled to
enact such an ordinance. However, this argument does not explain why the ordinance was
enforceable against plaintiffs, or how application of the ordinance is not a violation of plaintiffs’
due-process rights.

                                                -12-
        person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which
        may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the
        reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including
        reasonable attorney fees. The court may not assess punitive damages.

        And, MCL 600.2591 provides:

                 (1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense
        to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award
        to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with
        the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and
        their attorney.

                (2) The amount of costs and fees awarded under this section shall include
        all reasonable costs actually incurred by the prevailing party and any costs allowed
        by law or by court rule, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

                (3) As used in this section:

                (a) “Frivolous” means that at least 1 of the following conditions is met:

               (i) The party’s primary purpose in initiating the action or asserting the
        defense was to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party.

                (ii) The party had no reasonable basis to believe that the facts underlying
        that party’s legal position were in fact true.

                (iii) The party’s legal position was devoid of arguable legal merit.

                (b) “Prevailing party” means a party who wins on the entire record.

        In analyzing defendants’ motion for attorney fees, the trial court found “[s]o the initial
action I cannot find a basis for . . . frivolity nor can I find it in fact. I mean, its [sic] hard to imagine
a more fact[-]intensive question than the issue of land division . . . .” It went on, “from my
perspective and I’m sure from the Township’s perspective, and property owner’s perspective, very
confusing, drawn out, and in many instances frustrating to determine . . . what are the rules and
regulations governing acquisition and use of certain property.”

        Defendants now challenge this reasoning. They state that it should have been “readily
apparent” to plaintiffs that the LDA does not preempt the township’s land-division ordinance, and
therefore their claim was devoid of legal merit. As such, it should have been clear to plaintiffs
they were subject to the township’s administrative remedies. They argue plaintiffs’ counsel was
aware of these conclusions, and therefore, plaintiffs filed a frivolous action.

        Defendants fail to distinguish between a frivolous action and a colorable action. And, “the
mere fact that [a] plaintiff did not ultimately prevail on its legal position does not render its filing
of the complaint in Michigan frivolous.” Robert A Hansen Family Trust v FGH Indus, LLC, 279
Mich App 468, 487; 760 NW2d 526 (2008). As discussed, there were legal bases for plaintiffs’

                                                    -13-
assertions that (1) plaintiffs were not subject to the township’s land-division ordinances; and
(2) their failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See discussion supra. Although plaintiffs did
not ultimately prevail on their arguments, that does not mean plaintiffs’ arguments were “devoid
of arguable legal merit.” MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(iii). Indeed, plaintiffs’ arguments were not
erroneous at the outset, but took some analysis to determine their merit. To the extent defendants
believe plaintiffs’ primary purpose in filing suit was to “harass, embarrass, or injure” defendants,
defendants offer no evidence of the same, nor is there any evidence of this in the lower court
record. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for
attorney fees.

        Defendants present an additional argument that they are entitled to attorney fees on the
basis of the affidavit by plaintiffs’ attorney. They say the affidavit was “interposed for an improper
purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or expense in litigation costs . . . .” We
disagree. While we question plaintiffs’ rationale in filing this affidavit, we note the affidavit added
nothing to plaintiffs’ arguments in support of their partial motion for summary disposition. At the
same time, it cannot be said that the affidavit was filed for an improper purpose. Following the
first hearing on plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary disposition, the trial court allowed the
parties more time to gather evidence and to present additional briefing on the issues. Plaintiffs did
not file another brief and it appears the affidavit was meant to provide the trial court additional
evidence in support of plaintiffs’ motion. Although the filing of the affidavit was ultimately
misguided, it seems the affidavit was an attempt to provide a fair response to the trial court’s
instruction.

       Affirmed.

                                                               /s/ Thomas C. Cameron
                                                               /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
                                                               /s/ Michael J. Kelly

                                                 -14-