Trespass; Wiggins v City of Burton; Natural flow of surface water from a dominant estate; “Encourage or contribute to” a trespass; Helsel v Morcom; Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); Witness credibility; Effect of failing to move for a directed verdict; MCR 2.610; The law of the case doctrine; Rott v Rott; Grant of directed verdicts; Statute of limitations; MCL 600.5808(2); Accrual; MCL 600.5827; Morse v Colitti

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ motion for JNOV “or abuse its discretion in denying a new trial” on their trespass claims because the conflicting trial evidence permitted reasonable minds to differ on factual issues. It also did not err in granting “defendants’ motions for directed verdict on plaintiffs’ claims against” defendant-Estate of Hannelore West and their claim as to water runoff from defendants’ garage. Plaintiffs purchased property in 2016 adjacent to property owned by the now deceased Hannelore and Robert West (their estates were the defendants). The case arose after the Wests hired a company to cut down greenery on their property. Plaintiffs alleged that in that process, “trees and bushes were also removed on their property. [They] argued that the cutting of the greenery increased the surface-water runoff running from defendants’ property, causing damage” to two cottages on plaintiffs’ parcel. They asserted “that the evidence established an invasion on their property sufficient to establish that a trespass occurred, notwithstanding the jury verdict that there was ‘no invasion.’” The court rejected defendants’ arguments that (1) plaintiffs’ failure to move for a directed verdict precluded them from receiving a JNOV and (2) the law of the case doctrine barred their motion for JNOV. As to the merits, it concluded that given “the conflicting testimony about whether greenery was cleared from plaintiffs’ property, and whether the clearing caused an increase of runoff water onto [their] property, the trial court did not err in denying” their motion for JNOV. It also did not abuse its discretion in denying them “a new trial because the record does not reveal that the evidence preponderated so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.” The court found there was competent record evidence “suggesting there was no clearing of greenery on plaintiffs’ property and no signs of erosion, and it was within the province of the jury to give credibility and weight to that testimony.” As to the directed verdict for Hannelore’s estate, it was clear that she “did nothing to encourage or contribute to any alleged trespass.” Thus, her estate “was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” As to the directed verdict on plaintiffs’ trespass claim relating to defendants’ garage, this claim “was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations in MCL 600.5805(2)[.]” Affirmed.