MUSKEGON CNTY ROAD COMM V MARY L PREMO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
UNPUBLISHED
November 13, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MARY L. PREMO, LAWRENCE S. VIHTELIC,
and LILLIAN VIHTELIC,
No. 280300
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 06-044891-CH
Defendants-Appellees.
MUSKEGON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
MARY L. PREMO, LAWRENCE S. VIHTELIC,
and LILLIAN VIHTELIC,
No. 282104
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 06-044891-CH
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
SAWYER, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the circuit court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action, finding that it lacked
standing in Docket No. 280300, but I respectfully dissent in the majority’s conclusion that the
circuit court erred in not assessing sanctions against plaintiff in Docket No. 282104.
I am not persuaded that the court clearly erred when it denied defendants’ motion for
sanctions. The plaintiff in this matter set forth an arguably meritorious argument that it had
standing based on its statutory authority and its related representation of the public’s interests.
Further, the trial court initially denied defendants’ first motion for summary disposition because
plaintiff had proffered evidence raising material questions of fact with respect to its claims for
common-law dedication and highway by user, and at that point in the litigation, both parties
presumed that plaintiff had requisite standing. I therefore do not believe that the trial court
clearly erred when it denied defendants’ motion for sanctions.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
-1-
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.
