MARTIN TITTLE V CITY OF ANN ARBOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MARTIN TITTLE,
UNPUBLISHED
September 20, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 229020
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 99-10293 CZ
CITY OF ANN ARBOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s denial of his claim for declaratory relief.
Plaintiff had sought a declaratory judgment that a zoning ordinance was invalid because
defendant failed to follow the statutorily mandated procedures, MCL 125.584, in enacting the
ordinance. We affirm.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the zoning ordinance1 is that
defendant failed to comply with MCL 125.584 when it enacted the ordinance. Plaintiff’s trial
brief specifically contended that the zoning ordinance was not validly enacted because (i)
defendant failed to hold a public hearing pursuant to MCL 125.584(1); and (ii) defendant’s
planning commission failed to submit a report to the city council pursuant to MCL 125.584(2).
The trial court found2 that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendant did not follow the enacting procedures of MCL 125.584. Alternatively, the trial court
ruled that plaintiff was estopped from challenging the validity of the zoning ordinance because it
was enacted in 1958.
On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for declaratory
judgment. We have opined that “[w]here a zoning ordinance is not challenged until several years
1
We agree with plaintiff’s assertion that the ordinance was a zoning ordinance, rather than a
regulatory ordinance. However, it appears that the trial court treated the ordinance as a zoning
ordinance; accordingly, plaintiff’s limited contention of error on this point is moot. See Jackson
v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC, 239 Mich App 482, 493; 608 NW2d 531 (2000).
2
The parties stipulated to a bench trial on the briefs.
-1-
after its enactment, a challenge on the ground that the ordinance was improperly enacted is
precluded on public policy grounds.” Jackson, supra at 493. Here, there is no dispute that the
zoning ordinance at issue was enacted in 1958. There is also no dispute that the most recent
amendment was in 1992. In light of the many years that have elapsed between the original
enactment of the zoning ordinance, as well as the relatively minor amendments to the ordinance
after that date, we conclude that plaintiff’s challenge to the enactment of the zoning ordinance is
precluded on public policy grounds. Id. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying
plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment.3
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
3
Although the trial court characterized this issue as one of estoppel, we may affirm where the
trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reason. People v Jory, 443 Mich 403, 425;
505 NW2d 228 (1993).
-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.
