Jeffrey V.H. Sluggett (P39440) | Crystal L. Morgan (P68837) | Bloom Sluggett Morgan, PC | 15 Ionia Ave. SW Suite 640 |Grand Rapids, MI 49503 | 616-965-9340

Appellant Townships seek a result that conflicts with well-settled principles governing statutory interpretation, jurisdiction, annexation, collateral estoppel, and contract zoning. In addition, while Appellants disagree with the outcome, the decisions were consistent with the well-reasoned
decisions in Casco and Inverness. Appellants urge this Court to conclude that both published decisions were wrongfully decided, to upend multiple aspects of our current laws, and
to replace well-established procedures with an unworkable, litigious process. If the Townships succeed in their attempt to reinvent Act 425, it will set the stage to insulate Act 425 agreements from scrutiny, thereby allowing them to be used at the whim of local units to invade the province of the State Boundary Commission and to bar annexation proceedings that serve a lawful, legitimate governmental purpose in this state. This Court should decline the Townships’ invitation to elevate an Act 425 agreement in significance or priority when its true purpose, as in this case, is to prevent annexation and restrict development.

pending