Where a plaintiff, alleging that the defendant knowingly permitted wayward golf balls to land on the plaintiff’s property, requested a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.
Reversed and remanded.
“Defendant is the owner of a property located at 800 Golf Drive, Pontiac, Michigan, which is operated as a golf course under the name of The Links at Crystal Lake. Plaintiff Stone Age Properties, LLC (SAP), is the owner of an adjacent property located at 340 Rockwell Avenue, which SAP acquired on September 25, 2019. SAP’s property is surrounded on three sides by defendant’s golf course. Plaintiff Motor City Toys, Inc. (MCT), leases the SAP property and operates a facility for the storage of vintage automobiles on the premises. MCT began leasing the property on October 1, 2019, for a six-year term ending on September 30, 2025.
“In July 2022, plaintiffs jointly filed a complaint against defendant for trespass, private nuisance, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, alleging that defendant knowingly permitted wayward golf balls to land on the SAP property, hitting structures and vehicles stored on the SAP property and causing safety risks to individuals lawfully present on the SAP property.
“The trial court in this case, in reaching its conclusion on irreparable harm, resorted to speculation and hyperbole that was unsupported by the record, thereby committing clear error in its factual findings. ... Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm at the preliminary injunction stage.
“On this record, we are unable to conclude that plaintiffs have demonstrated a ‘substantial’ and ‘unreasonable’ interference from the golf balls without resorting to speculation about the frequency and volume of golf balls landing on plaintiffs’ property and, as discussed in the context of irreparable harm, the harm they might cause. ... Thus, on this record, plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their nuisance claim.
“Our conclusion at this stage of the proceedings does not preclude plaintiffs from ultimately prevailing on the merits. We simply hold that plaintiffs have not yet provided evidence from which we could conclude that they are reasonably likely to prevail for purposes of demonstrating that they are entitled to preliminary relief in the form of an injunction before the parties have had the opportunity to fully develop their evidence and arguments. On remand, the parties will have that chance.
“Weighing the four factors, it is highly significant that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. It is also highly significant that the trial court, by granting this preliminary injunction, gave plaintiffs the complete equitable relief they sought before the merits of their claims could be properly resolved based on a fully developed factual record and fully developed legal arguments, allowing plaintiffs to essentially dictate the status quo for the parties during the course of the litigation to suit plaintiffs’ desired ends. This is contrary to the purpose of a preliminary injunction.
“This case is actually a fairly straightforward dispute between neighboring property owners over how one property owner’s undisputedly legitimate use of property creates undesirable side effects that negatively impact the neighboring property owner. The litigation process provides a means for this dispute to be resolved. However, plaintiffs cannot use the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction as a vehicle to short-circuit that process and obtain their desired result on an expedited basis without the need to first fully prove their entitlement to such relief through the full adversarial litigation process. Indeed, the process would become much less vigorous if plaintiffs had already achieved their objective that initially led them to file this action. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is any harm that will occur without a preliminary injunction for which there is not an adequate legal remedy.
“The trial court abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction. We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Stone Age Prop. LLC v. 800 Golf Drive LLC; MiLW 08-108100 , 13 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Gadola, J., Borrello, J., Boonstra, J.; on appeal from Oakland Circuit Court; Michele Riker-Semon for appellant; Jason C. Yert for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0