Steffens v. Keeler
200 Mich. App. 179, 503 N.W.2d 675 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Michigan's Right to Farm Act (RTFA) precludes private nuisance claims against farm operations that conform to generally accepted agricultural and management practices, or against farm operations that existed before a change in surrounding land use within one mile, provided the farm would not have been a nuisance prior to such change.
Facts:
- W. L. Shaw and other plaintiffs moved into their house on February 7, 1985.
- At the time plaintiffs moved in, the property across the street had a vacant dairy barn and a house.
- Dean E. Eyer and other defendants moved into the house across the street in the spring of 1987.
- Approximately five months after moving into the house, defendants began purchasing pigs and operating a pig farm.
- The land in the area, including both plaintiffs' and defendants' properties, is zoned agricultural/residential.
- North of plaintiffs' property is a 246-acre dairy farm, and the property west is a mixture of agricultural, residential, and wetlands.
- On July 14, 1989, Department of Agriculture employees inspected defendants' farm and notified defendants that their operation was not in compliance with generally accepted livestock waste management practices.
- Defendants developed and received approval for a waste utilization plan on July 16, 1990, which brought their farm operation into compliance with the voluntary right to farm guidelines.
- Compliance was delayed due to backlogs and delays in technical assistance with the documentation of the plan.
Procedural Posture:
- W. L. Shaw and other plaintiffs filed a private nuisance claim against Dean E. Eyer and other defendants in a trial court (court of first instance).
- Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition, finding that the Right to Farm Act did not protect defendants from plaintiffs’ private nuisance claim and that defendants’ farm operation constituted a nuisance in fact.
- The trial court denied defendants’ motion for summary disposition.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Michigan Right to Farm Act (MCL 286.473; MSA 12.122(3)) provide immunity from a private nuisance claim against a pig farm operation if the operation either (1) conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices, or (2) existed before a relevant change in the surrounding land use within one mile and would not have been a nuisance prior to that change?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the Right to Farm Act precludes the private nuisance claim against Dean E. Eyer's pig farm because the farm either conformed to generally accepted agricultural practices or qualified for protection based on existing agricultural land use. The trial court erred in finding that § 3(1) of the RTFA did not protect defendants. The RTFA specifically prohibits nuisance litigation against a farm that conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices. While an initial inspection found non-compliance, defendants developed and received approval for a waste utilization plan in July 1990, bringing their operation into compliance with the relevant guidelines, even with some delays in technical assistance. Therefore, defendants were protected under this section. The trial court also erred in denying defendants protection under § 3(2) of the RTFA. This section protects farm operations that existed before a change in land use or occupancy within one mile of the farm, provided the farm would not have been a nuisance before that change. The relevant inquiry is the land use within one mile of the defendants' property before the pig farm operation began, not when plaintiffs purchased their property. The evidence presented indicated that the surrounding land remained predominantly agricultural, including an adjacent 246-acre dairy farm. Insufficient evidence was presented to show a change to predominantly residential land use within one mile that would deny defendants protection. Because defendants are immune from a nuisance suit under the RTFA, the Court of Appeals did not need to address the trial court's factual findings regarding the existence of a nuisance.
Dissenting - Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
No, the court should not preclude the private nuisance claim without a full trial because there is an insufficient record to decide whether the defendants' pig farm is a nuisance in fact. The dissenting judge argues that the existence of a nuisance in fact is a question of fact that requires a full evidentiary trial, especially since the record does not contain a stipulation by the parties to decide the case on dispositive motions or a stipulation of facts. It is believed that there is a justiciable issue as to whether the operation of a pig farm in an agricultural area, which had previously only housed a pet pony for thirty years, constituted a nuisance. The dissenting opinion would reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for a full trial on the nuisance issue to allow for proper submission of proofs, particularly from the defendants.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of protections afforded to agricultural operations under Michigan's Right to Farm Act. It establishes that a farm can gain immunity from nuisance claims by coming into compliance with generally accepted agricultural practices, even if compliance is achieved after initial issues. The ruling also emphasizes that the 'change in land use' provision of the RTFA focuses on the character of the land surrounding the farm before the specific farming operation began, rather than the timing of a plaintiff's move into the area. This decision strengthens the position of farmers in predominantly agricultural zones against residential encroachment and nuisance lawsuits, provided they meet compliance standards or can demonstrate an existing agricultural land use history.
