Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 29, 2009 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
137446-7 & (90) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
JEFFREY HENDEE, MICHAEL HENDEE, Diane M. Hathaway,
LOUANN DEMOREST HENDEE, and Justices
VILLAGE POINT DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v SC: 137446-7
COA: 270594; 275469
Livingston CC: 04-020676-CZ
TOWNSHIP OF PUTNAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 26, 2008
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a rule of finality or ripeness applies
to the plaintiffs’ exclusionary zoning claim, see Paragon Properties v City of Novi, 452
Mich 568, 576 (1996), Warth v Seldin, 422 US 490, 508 n 18 (1975) (“[U]sually the
focus should be on a particular project.”); (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals
majority properly held that the defendant township’s previous denials of the plaintiffs’
applications to rezone their property for less intensive uses excused the finality
requirement under the futility doctrine; (3) whether the trial court erred in granting
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant township from interfering with the plaintiffs’
proposed use of their property for a manufactured housing community when the plaintiffs
had never proposed that use to the township, see Schwartz v City of Flint, 426 Mich 295,
327-328 (1986); (4) whether a claim that a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally excludes
a lawful use is properly analyzed without regard to whether a demonstrated need for the
use exists, as suggested by the Court of Appeals reliance on Kropf v City of Sterling
Heights, 391 Mich 139, 155-156 (1974), or whether the enactment of 1978 PA 637, MCL
125.297a (now recodified in nearly identical language as MCL 125.3207) superseded the
analysis of Kropf on which the majority relied; and (5) whether the trial court abused its
discretion in awarding the plaintiffs their costs and expert witness fees.
2
The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The Real Property
Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Townships Association are
invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the
determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to
file briefs amicus curiae.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 29, 2009 _________________________________________
p0422 Clerk