Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Turunen v. Proksch Construction Co.
Citations: 447 N.W.2d 857; 180 Mich. App. 645Docket: Docket 107669
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; October 17, 1989; Michigan; State Appellate Court
In the case of Turunen v. Proksch Construction Company, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an appeal by plaintiff Ruben Turunen concerning the ownership of mining rights on a parcel of land in Baraga County. The court reviewed a circuit court's summary disposition favoring the Department of Natural Resources, which was certified as a final order. The parcel, originally conveyed to William Klemett in 1950, included a reservation of mineral rights for the State of Michigan. After several ownership changes, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Wisti became the current owners and had granted Turunen a license to operate a limestone quarry on the land. Turunen had been paying royalties to the State for limestone extraction. In 1986, the Department of Natural Resources awarded mineral lease rights to Proksch Construction Company, which subsequently led to conflicts over the limestone rights. Turunen sought to purchase the awarded lease from Proksch but was denied assignment approval by the Department, resulting in claimed damages due to lost profits. Turunen contested the trial court's finding that the state's reservation of rights included nonmetallic minerals. He argued that limestone should not be classified as a mineral under the relevant statute, referencing a 1964 legislative amendment that excluded certain nonmetallic minerals from mineral rights definitions. However, the court upheld the trial court's ruling, citing the precedent set in Matthews v. Department of Conservation, which confirmed that the state's mineral rights retention includes nonmetallic minerals such as limestone. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part regarding the interpretations of mineral rights. The state conveyed property to Klemett before the 1964 amendment, making the Matthews decision, which interpreted the statute as it existed in the 1950s, applicable. Although the plaintiff contends that the 1964 amendment indicates the Legislature's belief that Matthews was misinterpreted, it is the Supreme Court's role to reassess that interpretation, and this Court must adhere to Matthews until it is overruled. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's ejectment claim for improper pleading under MCR 3.411, but the appellate court found that the plaintiff did properly plead the action, reversing the trial court's ruling on that issue. However, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff's amended complaints could aid the trial court in future proceedings. Additionally, the plaintiff's argument for priority in purchasing nonmetallic mineral rights under MCL 322.212 failed because the case involved a lease, not a sale, rendering the priority provision inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed part of the trial court's decision, reversed part, and remanded for further proceedings without retaining jurisdiction, with no costs awarded to either party.