LYNN TOWNSHIP V CLARENCE MARTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LYNN TOWNSHIP,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
CLARENCE MARTER, MYRTLE MARTER,
and MARK MARTER,
No. 226472
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 99-000472-CZ
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and R. D. Gotham*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendants installed a mobile home on their property located within plaintiff’s
boundaries. The home measured twelve feet in width. Plaintiff notified defendants that the
home violated the township’s zoning ordinance that required a single-family dwelling to be at
least twenty feet wide. Defendants refused to correct the violation or to move the home.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendants’ home did not comply with zoning
requirements, and that it constituted a nuisance. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). In response, defendants argued that plaintiff’s ordinance
violated MCL 125.2307(3), which states that a local government ordinance cannot “be designed
as exclusionary to mobile homes generally whether the mobile homes are located inside or
outside of mobile home parks or seasonal mobile home parks.” Defendants asserted that
plaintiff’s ordinance prevented the placement of any single-wide mobile home within plaintiff’s
boundaries. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion, finding that because the ordinance treated
all single-family dwellings in the same manner, it was not exclusionary to mobile homes.
We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition.
Harrison v Olde Financial Corp, 225 Mich App 601, 605; 572 NW2d 679 (1997).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Defendants argue that the trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
disposition. We disagree and affirm. A blanket exclusion of mobile homes from all areas not
designated as mobile home parks is not a permissible exercise of police power; however, mobile
homes can be excluded from an area if they fail to meet reasonable standards designed to ensure
the favorable comparison of mobile homes with site-built housing. Robinson Twp v Knoll, 410
Mich 293, 310; 302 NW2d 146 (1981).
In Gackler Land Co, Inc v Yankee Springs Twp, 427 Mich 562; 398 NW2d 393 (1986),
our Supreme Court upheld a township ordinance that required that a mobile home placed outside
of a mobile home park meet the definition of a dwelling. The ordinance defined a dwelling as a
structure that was at least twenty-four feet wide. The Gackler Court held that the ordinance did
not exclude the placement of all single-wide mobile homes outside of mobile home parks, and
did not treat mobile homes differently than site-built homes. Id., 570.
In Howard Twp Bd of Trustees v Waldo, 168 Mich App 565; 425 NW2d 180 (1988), this
Court held that a municipal ordinance requiring that single-family dwellings must be at least
twenty-four feet wide was constitutional and did not operate to preclude the placement of all
single-wide mobile homes in areas outside mobile home parks. Id. at 569-572.
Here, plaintiff’s ordinance requiring that a single-family dwelling be at least twenty feet
wide treats all single-family dwellings, including single-wide mobile homes and site-built
homes, equally. The ordinance specifies that the size requirements do not apply to mobile homes
located in licensed mobile home parks. The ordinance is not exclusionary to mobile homes
generally, and does not contravene MCL 125.2307(3). The trial court properly granted
plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. Knoll, supra; Gackler, supra; Waldo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Roy D. Gotham
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.