From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vanfarowe v. C.C.T

Supreme Court of Michigan
Apr 23, 2008
480 Mich. 1168 (Mich. 2008)

Opinion

No. 135507.

April 23, 2008.

Court of Appeals No. 264189.


Summary Dispositions April 23, 2008.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals stating that remand is required "[b]ecause the trial court proceeded to resolve the case on briefs without entertaining testimony regarding the usage and whether it falls within the applicable case law. . . ." This was an appeal to the circuit court under a zoning ordinance providing for no appeal to a zoning board of appeals from the decision of the township board, so the proper remand for further evidentiary proceedings is to the township board, not to the circuit court. Macenas v Village of Michiana, 433 Mich 380, 394-397 (1989); Sportsman's Club v Exeter Twp, 217 Mich App 195, 198-201, 202 (1996). To the extent that further evidentiary hearings are necessary on remand, such hearings must be held before the Township Board. See Sportsman's Club, supra at 199-200; MCL 125.290(1); MCL 125.293a(2). In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.


Summaries of

Vanfarowe v. C.C.T

Supreme Court of Michigan
Apr 23, 2008
480 Mich. 1168 (Mich. 2008)
Case details for

Vanfarowe v. C.C.T

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN VANFAROWE and RAJINI VANFAROWE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CASCADE…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Apr 23, 2008

Citations

480 Mich. 1168 (Mich. 2008)