Weisswasser v. Chernick

252 N.W.2d 766, 399 Mich. 653, 1977 Mich. LEXIS 175
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 2, 1977
DocketDocket No. 58532
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 252 N.W.2d 766 (Weisswasser v. Chernick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weisswasser v. Chernick, 252 N.W.2d 766, 399 Mich. 653, 1977 Mich. LEXIS 175 (Mich. 1977).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs obtained a jury verdict on their complaint against an adjoining property owner for removal of earth and destruction of trees. The Court of Appeals, relying on Padman v Rhodes, 126 Mich 434; 85 NW 1130 (1901), found that the plaintiffs had not discharged their burden of proving the defendants’ acts were without the permission of the owner of the lands and reversed. 68 Mich App 342; 242 NW2d 576 (1976). We disagree.

The Weisswassers, plaintiffs, owned 175 acres of farm land as tenants in common. In early October of 1972, Emanuel Weisswasser went to his farm land and found a bulldozer leveling a hill and moving the earth from the hill onto adjacent land owned by the Chernicks. Trees on the Weisswasser land were razed in the process.

A jury found several defendants liable for trespass and awarded $21,600 in damages. These damages were tripled, under the trespass statute,1 to $64,800._

[655]*655Of the eight brothers and sisters who held the property as tenants in common, only one, Emanuel Weisswasser, the tenant in possession, testified. His testimony was that he did not grant consent. Also, circumstantial evidence indicated there was not consent.

The testimony of Emanuel Weisswasser that he did not grant consent coupled with the circumstantial evidence of non-consent was sufficient, in our judgment, to satisfy the plaintiffs’ burden of proof. The defense proofs dealt with minimizing damages.

Pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of leave to appeal, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for consideration of issues raised in that Court but not addressed in its opinion. Costs to plaintiffs.

Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, Ryan, and Blair Moody, Jr., JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Michael Simonie v. Lowell Cote
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2017
Stevens v. Creek
328 N.W.2d 672 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Weisswasser v. Chernick
266 N.W.2d 691 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 N.W.2d 766, 399 Mich. 653, 1977 Mich. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisswasser-v-chernick-mich-1977.