CHRISTOPHER MEANY V CITY OF SAUGATUCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHRISTOPHER MEANY and DONNA
MORGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 243694
Allegan Circuit Court
LC No. 02-030796-AW
CITY OF SAUGATUCK and SAUGATUCK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court order denying their motion for summary
disposition and granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiffs brought this action for mandamus and declaratory judgment, requesting the
court to order defendants to issue a building permit for construction on their property.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may lie to compel the exercise of some measure of
discretion, but not to compel its exercise in a particular manner. Teasel v Dept of Mental Health,
419 Mich 390, 410; 355 NW2d 75 (1984). In general, “[i]ssuance of a writ of mandamus is
proper where (1) the plaintiff has a clear legal right to performance of the specific duty sought to
be compelled, (2) the defendant has the clear legal duty to perform such act and (3) the act is
ministerial, involving no exercise of discretion or judgment.” Vorva v Plymouth-Canton
Community School Dist, 230 Mich App 651, 655; 584 NW2d 743 (1998). The plaintiff must be
without other adequate legal or equitable remedy. Tuscola Co Abstract Co v Tuscola Co
Register of Deeds, 206 Mich App 508, 510; 522 NW2d 686 (1994).
Plaintiffs had an adequate legal remedy through an appeal of the decision of the zoning
board of appeals. MCL 125.585(11). Plaintiffs have waived their challenge to a neighbor’s
standing to appeal to the ZBA. At any rate, where it was alleged that plaintiffs’ construction
would block the neighbor’s lake view and reduce his property’s value, we conclude that the
neighbor was an aggrieved party who had standing to appeal to the ZBA. See MCL 125.585(5),
Brown v East Lansing Zoning Bd of Appeals, 109 Mich App 668, 701; 311 NW2d 828 (1981),
and Joseph v Grand Blanc Twp, 5 Mich App 566, 571; 147 NW2d 458 (1967).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
