HUGH BROWN III V CALEDONIA TWP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
HUGH BROWN, III,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 244773
Alcona Circuit Court
LC No. 00-010582-AA
CALEDONIA TOWNSHIP,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
KARL KOWALSKI, SANDRA KOWALSKI,
KENNETH HUBBARD, and MARY ANN
HUBBARD,
Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Griffin and Borrello, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Intervenors1 appeal by leave granted an order denying their motion to intervene in a
zoning appeal. This case arises from the township’s denial of plaintiff’s application for a special
use permit to operate a campground that was vigorously challenged by neighboring landowners,
including intervenors. The project is currently approved through consent of plaintiff and
defendant. We affirm.
Intervenors argue that they had a right to intervene to protect their interest of preventing
traffic congestion, decrease in property values, fire hazards, a change in the character of the
neighborhood, and interference with their quiet enjoyment of their homes. We disagree.
A court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to intervene is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Vestevich v West Bloomfield Twp, 245 Mich App 759, 761; 630 NW2d 646 (2001).
1
Although their motions for intervention at trial were denied, and they are appealing the denial
in the instant case, appellants will be referred to as intervenors for ease of reference.
-1-
“Intervention is properly allowed where the intervenor’s interests ‘may be’ inadequately
represented by one of the existing parties.” Id. (emphasis in original). While a municipality
typically represents its citizens when litigating municipal matters, “citizens are entitled to
intervene” when the municipality refuses to protect their interests. School Dist of Ferndale v
Royal Oak Twp School Dist No 8, 293 Mich 1, 8; 291 NW 199 (1940). Nevertheless, a review of
the record does not indicate that the township failed to represent intervenors’ interests.
Even if a potential intervenor has a basis to intervene as of right, the potential intervenor
must also demonstrate standing to assert a claim. Karrip v Cannon Twp, 115 Mich App 726,
732; 321 NW2d 690 (1982). Traditional standing denotes a party’s interest in litigation that
assures vigorous advocacy. Grosse Ile Committee for Legal Taxation v Grosse Ile Twp, 129
Mich App 477, 487; 342 NW2d 582 (1983). To have standing, intervenors must demonstrate a
legally protected interest that may be adversely affected. Wortelboer v Benzie Co, 212 Mich
App 208, 214; 537 NW2d 603 (1995). Our Supreme Court stated that a party must demonstrate
three elements to establish standing:
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual
or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Second, there must be a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to
be “fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . .
th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will
be “redressed by a favorable decision.” [Lee v Macomb Co Bd of Comm’rs, 464
Mich 726, 739-740; 629 NW2d 900 (2001), adopting Lujan v Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560-561; 112 S Ct 2130; 119 L Ed 2d 351 (1992).]
While intervenors zealously voiced their concerns at numerous zoning hearings, no
evidence was presented that would move intervenors’ concerns from conjectural and
hypothetical to actual and concrete. Because intervenors presented no concrete evidence of
imminent injury, they did not demonstrate standing. We decline to address the remaining issues
on appeal.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-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.
