Court Opinion

ID: 9663021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:01.799444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:23.907378
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(dissenting). I decline to join the Court’s opinion because it decides nothing. Having agreed to answer an abstract question having no factual component, the Court has rendered nothing more than an advisory opinion.
This was once a lawsuit about families with children being restricted to designated areas of the defendant’s apartment complex and the children of such families being forbidden to use the swimming pool in the complex. After a hearing on a petition for a temporary injunction, issuance of a temporary injunction, a complete investigation by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission prior to trial, submission to a mediation panel of the issue of damages awarded to the individual claimants by the Civil Rights Commission, settlement discussions, and agreement upon a new swimming pool rule, there was finally submitted to the circuit court on the day of trial the following question: "May the owner of a multi-building apartment complex lawfully restrict families with children to certain designated buildings?”
Apparently the question was submitted to the trial court on the stipulation of the parties but, as the question reveals, it is entirely without reference to any facts. The trial court’s answer to the question was, in effect, "maybe.” That court declared:
"However, on the facts of a given case, the reasons for the restriction and the manner of application may violate the statute.
"The Court’s ruling in the first instance with regards to it not being per se violative, is if the action is taken by the landlord in the interest of the comfort and safety of all the tenants.”
*124Plainly, the abstract question put to the court was not answered categorically. The court’s answer, understandably, was couched in the cautionary language with which all lawyers are familiar: it depends upon the facts.
My colleagues have now undertaken to answer the same question, again devoid of any factual underpinnings, by giving the same answer — it depends.
Of course it depends. As in the case of any lawsuit, it depends upon the facts of the lawsuit. Since this lawsuit is not presented to us as having any facts, no case or controversy has been decided, no conflicting positions resolved, no rights and duties declared, and, more importantly, no allegations or defenses are held to be established or proved.
This Court is not authorized to give abstract advisory opinions except under the provisions of Const 1963, art 3, § 8, and the certified question procedure of GCR 1963, 797. Neither of those provisions have been invoked in this case, nor are they applicable.
Leave to appeal was improvidently granted in this case. I would enter an order to that effect.