Court Opinion

ID: 9917358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 06:04:53.571397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:25.540316
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

ROBERT PRICE and KAREN PRICE,                                  UNPUBLISHED
                                                               January 11, 2024
           Appellees,

v                                                              No. 363327
                                                               Gladwin Circuit Court
COUNTY OF GLADWIN and COUNTY OF                                LC No. 22-011448-AA
MIDLAND,

           Appellants.

ENDRE SEFCSIK,

           Appellee,

v                                                              No. 363328
                                                               Gladwin Circuit Court
COUNTY OF GLADWIN and COUNTY OF                                LC No. 22-011449-AA
MIDLAND,

           Appellants.

CARL ROLL and COLETTE ROLL,

           Appellees,

v                                                              No. 363329
                                                               Gladwin Circuit Court
COUNTY OF GLADWIN and COUNTY OF                                LC No. 22-011450-AA
MIDLAND,

           Appellants.

ANTHONY BAX and KELLY BAX,

                                           -1-
                Appellees,

v                                                                     No. 363330
                                                                      Gladwin Circuit Court
COUNTY OF GLADWIN and COUNTY OF                                       LC No. 22-011451-AA
MIDLAND,

                Appellants.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and BORRELLO and RICK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In these consolidated appeals, the County of Gladwin and the County of Midland
(collectively, the counties) appeal by leave granted1 the order entered by the Gladwin Circuit Court
denying the counties’ motion seeking summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(6) (“Another
action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim.”) or, in the alternative,
to have the matter transferred to the Midland Circuit Court. For the reasons set forth in this
opinion, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                        I. BACKGROUND

        These four cases involve special-assessment roll appeals to circuit court stemming from
previous petitions the counties filed in both the Gladwin Circuit Court (Case No. 19-9892-PZ) and
the Midland Circuit Court (Case No. 19-5980-PZ) to set the lake levels of four inland lakes that
are part of an interconnected system spanning portions of both Gladwin County and Midland
County2 and to establish the Four Lakes Special Assessment District. In those proceedings,
Midland Circuit Judge Stephen Carras presided over the Midland Circuit action and was also
assigned by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to serve as a judge of the Gladwin
Circuit Court to “assist with the docket in the matter of Wixom Lake, Sanford Lake, et al, 19-9892-
PZ.”

       On May 28, 2019, Judge Carras entered an order in the Midland Circuit action setting the
normal lake levels for the four lakes pursuant to Part 307 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.30701 et seq., and confirming the boundaries of the Four
Lakes Special Assessment District. This order further provided that “this Order shall also be

1
 Price v Gladwin Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 17, 2023 (Docket
No. 363327); Sefcsik v Gladwin Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 17,
2023 (Docket No. 363328); Roll v Gladwin Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered
May 17, 2023 (Docket No. 363329); Bax v Gladwin Co, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered May 17, 2023 (Docket No. 363330).
2
    The four lakes are Sanford Lake, Secord Lake, Smallwood Lake, and Wixom Lake.

                                                 -2-
entered In the Matter of: Wixom Lake, Sanford Lake, Smallwood Lake, and Secord Lake, Case No.
19-009892-PZ, pending in the Gladwin County Circuit Court.” The order referred to each action
separately by its original case number and forum. It appears that the two actions were essentially
addressed simultaneously but it does not appear that they were ever formally consolidated.
Subsequently, Judge Carras entered an order in the Gladwin Circuit Court action ordering the May
28, 2019 Midland Circuit Court order to be entered in the Gladwin Circuit Court action.

        Robert and Karen Price, Endre Sefcsik, Carl and Collette Roll, and Anthony and Kelly Bax
(collectively, the property owners) own property within the Four Lakes Special Assessment
District. After the special assessment roll for the Four Lakes Special Assessment District was
approved by both the Gladwin County Board of Commissioners and the Midland County Board
of Commissioners on July 12, 2022, the Prices, the Rolls, the Baxes, and Sefcsik each filed
challenges related to the special assessment roll in the Gladwin Circuit Court, the Midland Circuit
Court, and the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

        The Gladwin Circuit Court cases are the only matters presently before this Court. In the
Gladwin Circuit Court, the counties moved for summary disposition of the property owners’
claims under MCR 2.116(C)(6) based on the parallel actions pending in the Midland Circuit Court
or, in the alternative, to transfer the Gladwin Circuit actions to the Midland Circuit Court. The
Gladwin Circuit Court issued a written opinion and order, addressing simultaneously the counties’
motions with respect to all four cases filed by the respective property owners.3 The court treated
the motions as motions to dismiss under MCR 7.110 and MCR 7.211(C)(2), and it denied the
motions. The court determined that the counties’ arguments were essentially focused on the issue
of venue and that the counties had not provided any evidence that the Midland Circuit Court had
been designated as the proper venue for purposes of MCL 324.30701(c). The Gladwin Circuit
Court determined that it was a proper venue for the appeals and declined to transfer the matters to
the Midland Circuit Court.

       As previously noted, this Court granted leave to appeal. This Court also consolidated the
appeals.4

                                            II. ANALYSIS

        Here, the property owners filed their appeals related to the special assessment rolls in three
different forums. The merits of those appeals are not before us at this juncture. Instead, this Court
is only presented with a narrow issue concerning the appropriate forum in which the property
owners may pursue their appeals concerning the special assessments at issue. Resolution of this
issue presents questions of law that we review de novo. In re Project Cost & Special Assessment
Roll for Chappel Dam, 282 Mich App 142, 145; 762 NW2d 192 (2009).

3
    In doing so, the circuit court recognized that the four cases had not been formally consolidated.
4
 Price v Gladwin Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 25, 2023 (Docket
Nos. 363327, 363328, 363329, 363330).

                                                  -3-
        In the context of an inland lake level matter under Part 307 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act where a special assessment roll has been approved to defray the cost
of establishing and maintaining a normal lake level, the “special assessment roll with the
assessments listed shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days after
county board approval.” MCL 324.30714(4). For purposes of this statute, “court” means “a circuit
court, and if more than 1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county
board or otherwise authorized by law to preside over an action.” MCL 324.30701(c).

         The Gladwin Circuit Court determined that there was no evidence that the counties
designated the Midland Circuit Court to preside over appeals of the special assessment roll, and
the Gladwin Circuit Court declined to dismiss the Gladwin Circuit appeal or transfer the matter to
the Midland Circuit Court. However, the Gladwin Circuit Court’s approach failed to recognize
that it effectively authorized the property owners to pursue their appeals of the special assessments
in multiple forums simultaneously. It is axiomatic that a litigant cannot pursue a claim against a
party in multiple forums simultaneously, thereby potentially subjecting a party to conflicting
judgments. See, e.g., Fast Air, Inc v Knight, 235 Mich App 541, 546; 599 NW2d 489 (1999) (“The
courts quite uniformly agree that parties may not be harassed by new suits brought by the same
plaintiff involving the same questions as those in pending litigation.”) (quotation marks and
citation omitted); Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS, LLC, 319 Mich App 308, 323-324; 900 NW2d 680
(2017) (“It is a familiar principle that when a court of competent jurisdiction has become possessed
of a case its authority continues, subject only to the appellate authority, until the matter is finally
and completely disposed of; and no court of co-ordinate authority is at liberty to interfere with its
action.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

        The issue at this juncture is simply a matter of venue, which merely concerns determining
“a fair and convenient location where the merits of a dispute can be adjudicated.” Gross v Gen
Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147, 156; 528 NW2d 707 (1995). Prolonged disputes focused solely on
venue are disfavored. Id. It is the property owners’ burden to demonstrate that their choice of
venue is proper. Id. at 155. We vacate the Gladwin Circuit Court’s order and remand this matter
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

       Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. No costs are awarded to either party,
a public question being involved. MCR 7.216(A)(7) and MCR 7.219(A). City of Bay City v Bay
County Treasurer, 292 Mich App 156, 172; 807 NW2d 892 (2011).

                                                               /s/ Anica Letica
                                                               /s/ Stephen L. Borrello
                                                               /s/ Michelle M. Rick

                                                 -4-