CARL SLOMCZENSKI V ROY A REDDEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CARL SLOMCZENSKI and JOAN E.
SLOMCZENSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
March 10, 2011
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
ROY A. REDDEN and CHERYL A. REDDEN,
No. 291382
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-084295-CH
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: OWENS, P.J., and WHITBECK and FORT HOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this property dispute, plaintiffs appeal by leave granted the order denying their request
for injunctive relief and the order awarding taxable costs to defendants. We reverse and remand
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A trial court’s decision regarding a request for injunctive relief is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v Pontiac, 482 Mich 1, 8; 753 NW2d 595
(2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of
reasonable and principled outcomes. Id. The scope of a party’s rights to an easement presents
an issue of fact, and a trial court’s determination of the facts is reviewed for clear error.
Blackhawk Development Corp v Village of Dexter, 473 Mich 33, 40; 700 NW2d 364 (2005).
The trial court’s dispositional ruling on equitable matters is subject to review de novo. Id.
In Kratze v Independent Order of Oddfellows, 442 Mich 136, 142 n 6; 500 NW2d 115
(1993), the Court held that the following factors may be considered when determining the
propriety of issuing an injunction for encroachments on the land of another:
(a) the nature of the interest to be protected,
(b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies,
(c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit,
(d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff,
-1-
(e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and
to plaintiff if it is denied,
(f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and
(g) the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment.
In the present case, plaintiffs challenged defendants’ use and maintenance of the mutual
easement created by their predecessors in title, specifically, a deck used to moor boats. Despite
expert testimony and testimony regarding the feasibility of modifying the deck, the trial court
failed to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and address the Kratze factors. Additionally,
the trial exhibits were not preserved in the lower court record because of the retirement of the
trial judge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.1
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
1
In light of our conclusion that a new trial is warranted, we need not address the trial court’s
ruling regarding the prevailing party with regard to the deck furniture for purposes of awarding
costs.
-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.
