Opinion
No. 142190.
December 10, 2010.
Court of Appeals No. 300782.
I concur in the order denying leave. This case comes to us on an interlocutory appeal, and the defendants have not shown that their rights will be irreparably damaged by the failure of this Court to intervene at this time.
The defendants claim that, contrary to Tomecek v Bavas, 482 Mich 484 (2008), the plaintiffs are attempting to effect a change in substantive property rights through proceedings under the Land Division Act (LDA), MCL 560.101 et seq. However, the record below is simply not sufficiently developed to determine the merits of defendants' claim, especially since no final order has affected defendants' substantive property rights. Furthermore, the defendants may appeal by right any final order or judgment that purports to alter their substantive property rights. Accordingly, there is no need for this Court to intervene at this time.