Abrahamson v. Wendell

Michigan Court of Appeals

Abrahamson v. Wendell

256 N.W.2d 613, 76 Mich. App. 278, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 914

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1977

DocketDocket 23041

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 256 N.W.2d 613 (Abrahamson v. Wendell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrahamson v. Wendell, 256 N.W.2d 613, 76 Mich. App. 278, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

D. L. Munro, J.

(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with the disposition made by the majority herein as it relates to the question of duress as a matter of law where a township supervisor appears before the township zoning board of appeals.

[283]*283With regard to the second issue as the same relates to the scope of the trial court’s inquiry into the proceedings before the township zoning board of appeals I respectfully dissent. The statute relating to appeals from the township zoning board of appeals, MCLA 125.293; MSA 5.2963(23), provides in pertinent part:

"The decision of such board shall not be final, and any person having an interest affected by any such ordinance shall have the right to appeal to the circuit court on questions of law and fact.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Quigley v Dexter Twp, 390 Mich 707, 710; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), states:

"Review in circuit court of a township zoning board of appeals’ decision under MCLA 125.293; MSA 5.2963(23) is not limited to questions of law. Since the board’s decision is not final, and since the circuit court reviews both the facts and the law, the circuit judge should have treated the matter as a trial de novo and entered whatever order he determined to be proper upon the merits of the controversy.”

In the writer’s opinion both the Legislature and the Supreme Court have recognized that hearings before township zoning boards of appeals are conducted in an informal way and, I believe, have stated that on appeal the case is tried de novo which would permit the admission of such evidence as was received by the township zoning board of appeals to be utilized in the circuit court and that in addition thereto the parties might present such additional evidence as may, in the judgment of the parties and the court, be warranted in this matter.

I would reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

D. L. Munro, J.

(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with the disposition made by the majority herein as it relates to the question of duress as a matter of law where a township supervisor appears before the township zoning board of appeals.

[283]*283With regard to the second issue as the same relates to the scope of the trial court’s inquiry into the proceedings before the township zoning board of appeals I respectfully dissent. The statute relating to appeals from the township zoning board of appeals, MCLA 125.293; MSA 5.2963(23), provides in pertinent part:

"The decision of such board shall not be final, and any person having an interest affected by any such ordinance shall have the right to appeal to the circuit court on questions of law and fact.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Quigley v Dexter Twp, 390 Mich 707, 710; 213 NW2d 166 (1973), states:

"Review in circuit court of a township zoning board of appeals’ decision under MCLA 125.293; MSA 5.2963(23) is not limited to questions of law. Since the board’s decision is not final, and since the circuit court reviews both the facts and the law, the circuit judge should have treated the matter as a trial de novo and entered whatever order he determined to be proper upon the merits of the controversy.”

In the writer’s opinion both the Legislature and the Supreme Court have recognized that hearings before township zoning boards of appeals are conducted in an informal way and, I believe, have stated that on appeal the case is tried de novo which would permit the admission of such evidence as was received by the township zoning board of appeals to be utilized in the circuit court and that in addition thereto the parties might present such additional evidence as may, in the judgment of the parties and the court, be warranted in this matter.

I would reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 N.W.2d 613, 76 Mich. App. 278, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrahamson-v-wendell-michctapp-1977.

Opinions

D. L. Munro, J.

I would reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack