Action alleging zoning violations; Motion for relief from judgment; MCR 2.612(C); Heugel v Heugel; Practice of law; MCL 600.916(1); Dressel v Ameribank; Application of the criminal exclusionary rule; Long Lake Twp v Maxon; Substantial rights of the opposing party; Prohibition against lawful uses of land; Gust v Canton Twp; “Aesthetic concerns”; Adams Outdoor Adver, Inc v City of Holland; Zoning ordinance (ZO)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-township’s motion for summary disposition and later denying defendants’ motion for relief from judgment. Plaintiff sued defendants for alleged violations of its ZO as they prepared the subject property for operation of a mushroom-growing operation. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff and issued an order giving defendants six months to abate a nuisance. After six months had passed, defendants moved for relief from judgment as to that order, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court rejected defendants’ argument that they presented extraordinary circumstances that justified setting the judgment aside, and that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding otherwise. The trial court “was not the entity preventing an attorney from appearing, and did not rush matters in a way that unfairly denied” defendant-Rogers the chance to find counsel. In addition, the “trial court did not err by proceeding with the hearing while Rogers was self-represented, and a different result likely would not have resulted even if the trial court had delayed matters until Rogers engaged a new attorney.” Further, the “length of time leading up to the summary-disposition motion, the persisting violations, Rogers’ goals at the time of the hearing, and the amount of time before a new attorney for defendants did appear, indicate that an adjournment would have made no difference in the decision on the merits, and if anything would have only further delayed matters.” Moreover, the “ordinance violations were neither obscure nor trivial. There have been persistent violations that risked even ‘loss of life.’” The court also rejected defendants’ claim that plaintiff’s substantial rights would not be detrimentally affected by setting the judgment aside, and that the trial court abused its discretion by not so concluding. “Defendants too hastily discount aesthetic concerns for zoning purposes.” In addition, their “focus on the detrimental effects on themselves is also not the proper way to analyze this issue.” The court noted that “[s]afety, and an end to the drain on plaintiff’s attention and resources, are clear substantial rights of plaintiff that would be detrimentally affected by setting the judgment aside. Even aesthetics may be a legitimate, if lesser, concern here.” Affirmed.