Background
Christopher Smith and Charles and Deborah Foster own neighboring lakefront properties on Indian Lake. Both properties slope toward their shared boundary, and runoff ordinarily travels between them toward the lake. Smith’s carriage house sits near the boundary at the lowest point of his driveway.
In 2022, the Fosters replaced a walkway near Smith’s carriage house with one that was higher and wider than the original. Smith alleged that the replacement increased runoff onto his property and flooded the carriage house. He later installed sandbags that blocked water from the Fosters’ walkway but caused runoff from his own property to pool near the carriage house. The trial court granted the Fosters summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and Smith appealed only the dismissal of his water-based trespass claim for the period between the walkway replacement and installation of the sandbags.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Although causing excess water to flow onto another person’s land can constitute trespass, the increase must be material. Smith’s expert stated that the walkway changes produced additional stormwater volume and velocity, but did not estimate the increase. Smith also presented no evidence establishing how much water had flowed onto his property before the replacement. His testimony that flooding began after landscaping changes showed, at most, a speculative causal connection and did not create a genuine factual dispute over a material increase in runoff.
The court also identified an independent ground for summary disposition: Smith offered no evidence that the Fosters knew or reasonably should have known, when the walkway was replaced, that the changes would increase runoff onto his land. His earlier complaints concerned unrelated property conditions, and his statement that the walkway increased runoff came only after construction was complete. Because Smith failed to produce evidence supporting essential elements of trespass, the Fosters were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A water-based trespass claim requires evidence that the defendant caused a material increase in water flowing onto the plaintiff’s property.
- An expert’s unquantified opinion that runoff volume and velocity increased may be insufficient when the record contains no evidence of the preexisting baseline flow.
- The plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the challenged action would cause a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s land.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary demands facing property owners who attribute flooding to a neighbor’s construction or landscaping. Evidence that flooding followed a project, without proof of the prior runoff conditions or the magnitude of the alleged increase, may amount only to speculation.
It also confirms that causation alone does not establish actionable trespass. A claimant must present evidence connecting the defendant’s knowledge, at the relevant time, to the anticipated physical intrusion.