PHILLIP D FORNER V CITY OF KENTWOOD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILLIP D. FORNER,
UNPUBLISHED
August 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 229723
Construction Code Commission
LC No. 00-000011
CITY OF KENTWOOD,
Respondent-Appellee,
and
MICHIGAN CHAPTER AIR CONDITIONING
CONTRACTORS,
Amicus Curiae.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals as of right the decision of the Construction Code Commission
affirming the City of Kentwood’s Construction Board of Appeals’ decision denying petitioner’s
request to install a chimney venting system at a private residence located in the city of
Kentwood. Because petitioner has removed the improper installation and now requests only an
advisory opinion from this Court, petitioner’s appeal before this Court is moot. We dismiss.
After petitioner installed the venting system at the residence, the city found the
installation to be in violation of the city’s code, and issued a citation against petitioner.
Petitioner appealed to the city’s construction board of appeals, which denied his appeal.
Petitioner then appealed to the Construction Code Commission. After the hearing, but shortly
before the commission affirmed, in writing, the decision of the city’s construction board of
appeals, petitioner removed the improper installation.
This Court will not decide moot issues. B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App
356, 359; 586 NW2d 117 (1998), citing East Grand Rapids School Dist v Dent Co Tax
Allocation Bd, 415 Mich 381, 390; 330 NW2d 7 (1982). A case or issue is moot when it presents
only abstract questions of law that do not rest on existing facts or rights and an event occurs that
renders it impossible for a reviewing court to grant relief. Id. However, this Court will review a
moot issue if it is one of public significance that is likely to recur and evade appellate review. Id.
-1-
Because petitioner removed the improper installation, he requests no relief specific to
him individually and no relief can be granted to him individually. This Court cannot now
approve an installation that no longer exists. Petitioner raises many procedural issues regarding
the Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1501 et seq., and argues this Court should enter an order
so the state can “benefit from this Court’s wisdom in future application of Act 230, the rules
promulgated thereunder and other applicable statutes.”
Petitioner’s procedural issues arise under the Construction Code Act. His primary issues
deal specifically with MCL 125.1508, under which the city elected to exempt itself from the state
code and enforce a nationally recognized code. MCL 125.1508 is one of the many statutes in the
Construction Code Act that is being repealed pursuant to 1999 PA 245. Because petitioner has
removed the improper installation and the primary statutes on which petitioner relies for his
procedural issues are being repealed or have been repealed, we find petitioner’s appeal moot and
decline to address the merits of his claims.
Appeal dismissed as moot.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
