Adams v Vezino, et. al (Antrim Circuit Court File No:  06-8225-CH) Clam Lake client front lot owners filed lawsuit against back lot owners to restrict the size of dock and mooring at the end of an easement for "ingress and egress."  Suit resolved following facilitative mediation by drafting agreement defining back lot owners rights and restrictions and formation of back lot owner association.

Churches v Ruttman, et al (Montmorency County Circuit Court, File No:02-000042-CH) Client, West Twin Lake front owner, filed suit against backlot owners to prevent use of easement and dock. Motion for Summary Disposition granted in favor of client, Court of Appeals affirmed May, 2006.

Cox, et al v Bofysil, et al (Crawford County Circuit Court, File No: 02-5921-CH) Suit on behalf of front lot owner adjacent to public road end being used by backlot owners. Dock removed without necessity of trial.

Britton v Fifth Third Bank (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 03-10288-CH). Modular home placed too close to client’s property line, resulting in easement to 11-acre backlot becoming unusable pursuant to County Zoning Ordinance. Case dismissed upon agreement to move modular home and pay attorney fees.

Chenevere v Burt Township (Cheboygan County Circuit Court, File No: 06-7612-AA) Township Supervisor objected to back lot owners using lake access lot next to his property. Following appeal from Burt Township Zoning Board of Appeals to Cheboygan County Circuit Court, Township supervisor and Township Planning Commission reached agreement with client back lot owners to allow dock and mooring of boats.

Griffith v Budzynowski, et al (Alcona County Circuit Court, File No: 06-724-CZ)  Client's family originally owned 270 acres, which was subsequently sold and/or inherited by various family members.  Issues involved included proper division of oil and gas revenues, competency of original owner to sell property, and easement by necessity for a landlocked remainder parcel owned by cleint.  Resolved through consent judgment.

Maczik v Davis (Roscommon County Circuit Court File No: 99-720867-CK, Court of Appeals Docket 273220)  Back lot owner claimed right to partition riparian rights of client front lot owner, based on misreading of prior September 10, 1974 Judgment.  Court of Appeals reversed decision of lower court, thereby confirming that back lot owner had no riparian rights to shore of Houghton Lake in front of clients'

Otsego County Rural Alliance v Bagley Township (Otsego County Circuit Court 01-9003-CE) Represented Citizen’s group challenging legality of formation of Bagley Downtown Development Authority and construction of a million square foot mall. Lost Motion for Summary Disposition before Circuit Court, lost before Court of Appeals, but entire project collapsed during course of litigation process.

Ramsey v Otsego County. (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 01-9332-AS) Client, an owner of an apartment complex, objected to the rezone of a parcel of property across the street, which would have allowed traffic from an industrial park to enter his quiet residential neighborhood. After filing of lawsuit, County admitted that approval of the rezone was invalid; rezone was subsequently resubmitted to the Township and rejected.

Wagner v Otsego County (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 03-010453-AV) Client challenged construction of sewer project to service Bagley Downtown Development Authority. Approval of project by County reversed by Circuit Court due to Township and County’s failure to comply with Otsego County Zoning Ordinance requirement.

Way v Eveline Township and Parks, et al. (Charlevoix County Circuit Court, File No: 03-1939-19-CZ) Action by Plaintiffs to rezone 160-acre agricultural parcel, whose existing zoning allowed 19 homes to 425-unit residential project, including 275-unit mobile home park. Township capitulated, but clients comprising surrounding property owners intervened, to block consent judgment allowing development. Plaintiff responded with amended Complaint alleging damages against intervening property owners. Circuit Court first threw out damage claim and then following a six-day trial, issued a decision in January 2006 upholding existing zoning and nullifying the consent judgment agreed to by the developer and township. Developer elected not to appeal in exchange for surrounding property owners’ waiver of claim for attorney fees.

City of Gaylord v Totten, et. al. (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 04-10967-CZ) Client businesses were annexed to the City of Gaylord and required to pay special assessments for extension of water and sewer systems from the City. However, when the City insisted that clients pay for City water, which was inferior to their own well water, they filed suit on various theories, including a claim that the City was taking their property without just compensation and taxing them in violation of the Headlee tax limitation provision of the Michigan Constitution. Clients lost at the Circuit Court level, argument before the Michigan Court of Appeals expected in the near future.

Concerned Citizens of Acme Township v Acme Township, Village at Grand Traverse, LLC and Meijer, Inc. (Grand Traverse County Circuit Court file 05-024483-CH) Acme Township developed a Master Plan calling for the development of a neo-traditional village center on M-72 and Lautner Road. Developer, Village at Grand Traverse, LLC, gained control of the property intended for the Village center and sought to develop the largest mall in Northern Michigan. Township Board chose to disregard its own Master Plan and approve the proposed mall. Clients, Concerned Citizens of Acme Township, sued Acme Township, the mall developer and Meijer on the basis that the proposed development was not in compliance with the Master Plan. Subsequently, the entire Acme Township Board was removed from office. On July 6, 2005, the Grand Traverse County Circuit Court reversed the granting of the SUP for the development on the basis that it violated the Township Master Plan and improperly attempted to control the new township government. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed decision of Circuit Court and reinstated SUP, while holding of the Township could reject specific site plans proposed by the defeloper based on environmental and traffic concerns.

 Argue v Wolverine Power (Elmwood Township (Grand Traverse County) Zoning Board of Appeals)  Client adjacent property owners appeal approval of huge electrical substation in rural/agricultural area designated for preservation in the M-72 corridor study.  Further action dependent on ruling of ZBA.

Arbutus Beach Association v Aguilar (Otsego County Circuit Court No: 03-10300-CH(A))  In 1994, front lot and back lot owners in the Arbutus Beach subdivision reached a settlement in the case of O'Connell v Zamler (Otsego County Circuit Court No: 92-5180).  Unfortunately, over the succeeding years, the back lot and front lot owners could not agree how to interpret the orders entered into in 1994, or how the subdivision should be replatted in order to conform to those orders.  the current lawsuit was filed by the Association in 2003, to vacate road ends within the subdivision and to create a continuous beach to be owned by the owners Association created in 1994.  Clients are back lot owners seeking to insure that their rights to use the park pursuant to the 1994 agreement are honored in any clarifying settlement or judgment.

Hees, Liebold, Pagels and Nordeen v Michawye Limited Partnership (Otsego County Circuit Court Case No: 93-9492-NZ) Michaywe, a 2,200 lot development founded in 1970, was still under the control of its original developer in the early 1990's. Following a seven-year lawsuit, the developer conveyed approximately $6 Million worth of recreational property, including a golf course, clubhouse, pools and tennis courts, to the Michaywe Owners Association, paid $625,000 in damages and gave up control over the development to the Association.

Thornton v Norris (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 02-9832-CH) Client, newly formed homeowners association, filed suit to enforce Deed Restrictions prohibiting using camper trailers as vacation homes. Circuit Court upheld Deed Restrictions, requiring removal of trailers.

Arquette, et al v Lake Louise Property Owners Association, et al: (Otsego County Circuit Court, File No: 03-10291-CZ) Several members of small resort community sued homeowners association regarding failure to follow Bylaws regarding elections and attempt to sell lake front property owned by Association. Parties stipulated to dismiss lawsuit upon agreement of homeowners association to retract sale attempt and properly comply with Association Bylaws.

Soden, et al. v Lakes of the North (Antrim County Circuit Court, File No:04-8070-CH: Court of Appeals Docket 263459) 30 individual lot owners in an 8,000 lot development sued homeowners association relating to failure of the owners association to obey Deed Restrictions concerning procedures for increasing annual assessments and for levying a special assessment. Circuit Court agreed special assessment invalidly levied, but upheld increase in annual assessment. Court of Appeals subsequently ruled increase in annual assessment also invalid.