Court Opinion

ID: 9677582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:55:48.32831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.909721
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). The parties disagree with regard to whether the trial court improperly required that the case be decided on motions for summary disposition rather than permitting the parties, particularly the defendants, to submit proofs with regard to the nuisance issue. I do not think we have enough of a record to decide that the defendants’ pig farm is not a nuisance in fact. I would reverse and remand for trial of that issue. Giving the benefit of all reasonable doubt to the nonmovant, this Court should only determine whether a record might be developed that leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co v Starck, 437 Mich 175, 184-185; 468 NW2d 498 (1991). The existence of a nuisance in fact is a question of fact. Rosario v Lansing, 403 Mich 124; 268 NW2d 230 (1978), overruled on other grounds Li v Feldt (After Remand), 434 Mich 584; 456 NW2d 55 (1990). The record in this case does not contain a stipulation by the parties to allow the trial court to decide the case on dispositive motions. There is no stipulation of facts. I believe it is a justiciable issue whether defendants’ operation of a pig farm in an agricultural area, where the only animal for thirty years was a pet pony, constituted a nuisance.
1 would remand for trial on this issue._