Background
William Michael Coan and Cindy Plant and their neighbor, Robert Ercolani, became embroiled in years of litigation over flooding and water movement between their adjoining Livingston County properties. Both Coan and Ercolani had regraded or otherwise altered their land. The parties asserted competing claims for trespass and negligence, and each blamed the other for redirecting water.
A jury found that Ercolani trespassed and caused $85,000 in property damage, while Coan trespassed and caused Ercolani $91,250 in damage. It found Ercolani negligent but concluded that his negligence did not proximately cause plaintiffs’ damages, and it found neither Coan nor Plant negligent. After a bench trial addressing a permanent drainage solution, the circuit court rejected the parties’ competing proposals and adopted a plan devised by court-appointed independent expert Wayne Perry. Both sides appealed numerous rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in full. It held that the court properly admitted Ercolani’s expert testimony because the expert relied on soil borings, topographical information, aerial photographs, and other evidence—not merely the timing of the flooding—to conclude that added fill altered surface-water flow. That evidence, together with witness testimony, also created a genuine factual dispute sufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ request for summary disposition on Ercolani’s trespass claim. The challenge concerning Ercolani’s negligence counterclaim was moot because the jury found plaintiffs were not negligent.
The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by adopting Perry’s drainage plan. The record supported the findings that plaintiffs’ proposed grading and infiltration solution was not feasible and that Ercolani’s proposal risked overflowing a pond and flooding his property. Michigan’s Drain Code and the decision in Wiggins v. City of Burton did not bar the court-ordered solution to this dispute between private landowners. The court further rejected Ercolani’s challenges to the preliminary injunction and contempt proceedings, concluding that final injunctive relief rendered his request for a broader preliminary injunction unwarranted, the contempt evidence supported a finding that he violated an order against pumping water onto plaintiffs’ property, and the $2,900 contempt fine did not exceed the statutory limit merely because separate attorney fees brought the total award to $8,147.50.
Key Takeaways
- An expert’s opinion about redirected surface water may be admissible when grounded in soil borings, topographical surveys, aerial imagery, and site evidence, even without a calculation of the precise volume of water transferred.
- A trial court may adopt a neutral expert’s property-drainage plan as final injunctive relief when the record shows that it best addresses flooding without unduly burdening either owner.
- Attorney fees awarded separately from a contempt fine do not count toward Michigan’s statutory cap on the fine itself.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the broad discretion Michigan trial courts have to craft practical injunctive relief in a private drainage dispute after property alterations make restoration of historic grades impracticable. It also shows that appellate courts will uphold a court-appointed expert’s solution when the trial court explains why the competing plans are unworkable and ties its chosen remedy to the evidence.
For litigants in neighboring-property disputes, the ruling underscores that causation may be established through a combination of expert analysis, physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony, and that violating an interim water-management order can support contempt sanctions even while the underlying drainage litigation remains unresolved.