Hamilton v. City of Charlevoix

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. City of Charlevoix

198 N.W.2d 898, 40 Mich. App. 442, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1972

DocketDocket 11843

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.W.2d 898 (Hamilton v. City of Charlevoix) 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

Hamilton v. City of Charlevoix, 198 N.W.2d 898, 40 Mich. App. 442, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought this action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of land located in the plat of Newman’s Addition to the City of Charlevoix. The city answered contending that the property had been dedicated to a public use and was a part of a public street. The city moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. Examination of the record reveals that material issues of fact exist on the questions of whether the dedication was accepted and if so, whether the city abandoned the property. Thus, a summary judgment should not have been granted. Weeren v Evening News Association, 379 Mich 475 (1967), Sun Oil Company v Rosborough, 6 Mich App 176 (1967).

The record in this case reveals that both parties have indulged in tactics designed for the purposes of harassment and delay. The most glaring examples of this are found in their treatment of discovery procedures. The plaintiff submitted interrogatories designed to elicit the facts on which the city based its claim. The city answered as follows: "Written report of city attorney, contents of which are privileged”. The plaintiffs motion to compel answers to interrogatories was still pending at the time the motion for summary judgment was granted. The city sought to take the plaintiffs deposition and the plaintiff failed to appear. On remand if the parties do not comply with the *444 discovery rules the trial court should exercise its powers under GCR 1963, 313.

It appears that after the judgment was entered the plaintiff sold the property under a land contract. The city has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal accompanied by affidavits of the land contract vendees stating that they wish the action terminated. In the view we take of the case, we consider it preferable that the trial court pass on this issue. Thus, the city may make a similar motion on remand. Also, upon a proper motion the vendees may be joined as parties.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. No costs, a public question being involved.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought this action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of land located in the plat of Newman’s Addition to the City of Charlevoix. The city answered contending that the property had been dedicated to a public use and was a part of a public street. The city moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. Examination of the record reveals that material issues of fact exist on the questions of whether the dedication was accepted and if so, whether the city abandoned the property. Thus, a summary judgment should not have been granted. Weeren v Evening News Association, 379 Mich 475 (1967), Sun Oil Company v Rosborough, 6 Mich App 176 (1967).

The record in this case reveals that both parties have indulged in tactics designed for the purposes of harassment and delay. The most glaring examples of this are found in their treatment of discovery procedures. The plaintiff submitted interrogatories designed to elicit the facts on which the city based its claim. The city answered as follows: "Written report of city attorney, contents of which are privileged”. The plaintiffs motion to compel answers to interrogatories was still pending at the time the motion for summary judgment was granted. The city sought to take the plaintiffs deposition and the plaintiff failed to appear. On remand if the parties do not comply with the *444 discovery rules the trial court should exercise its powers under GCR 1963, 313.

It appears that after the judgment was entered the plaintiff sold the property under a land contract. The city has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal accompanied by affidavits of the land contract vendees stating that they wish the action terminated. In the view we take of the case, we consider it preferable that the trial court pass on this issue. Thus, the city may make a similar motion on remand. Also, upon a proper motion the vendees may be joined as parties.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. No costs, a public question being involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W.2d 898, 40 Mich. App. 442, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-city-of-charlevoix-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack