Categories: Michigan Supreme Court Opinions

CONSUMERS ENERGY v. BEARD, 473 Mich. 860 (2005)

699 N.W.2d 303

CONSUMERS ENERGY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. LEO BEARD, et al, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendants.

No. 127419.Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 14, 2005.

Summary Dispositions.

SC: 127419, COA: 246979.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment that affirms the Isabella Circuit Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim of prescriptive easements based on plaintiff’s use of the properties at issue since 1936 is vacated, and the Isabella Circuit Court, in the course of its proceedings on remand from the Court of Appeals, is to reconsider this claim. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In doing so, the Isabella Circuit Court should consider possible limits on the extent of the claimed prescriptive easements. See Rozmarek v. Plamondon, 419 Mich 287, 294-296 (1984). Further, the 1983 agreement that resulted in plaintiff’s receiving ten-year easements does not constitute evidence that can affect the claims in this case. See Rozmarek v. Plamondon, supra. In considering the adverse possession claims of defendants, the Isabella Circuit Court should consider the principles discussed in Rozmarek v. Plamondon, supra, Burns v. Foster, 348 Mich 8 (1957), Hamilton v. Weber, 339 Mich 31
(1954), and Walker v. Bowen, 333 Mich 13 (1952). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed to the extent it is otherwise inconsistent with this order, and in all other respects the application for leave to appeal is denied.