Condemnation Appeals After Project Completion: Mootness, Appellate Jurisdiction, and UCPA Good-Faith-Offer Duties

1. Introduction

Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation v. E. Richard Midlam, Jr., and Lisa R. Midlam (as co-trustees of the Earl R. Midlam and Hazel M. Midlam Trust) arises from condemnation proceedings under Michigan’s Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA), MCL 213.51 et seq., related to a completed public project. The litigation involves multiple docketed matters (SC 168634–168639) stemming from Calhoun Circuit Court cases (notably 2022-000973-CC and 2022-000983-CC) and related Court of Appeals dockets.

The Supreme Court’s May 20, 2026 order does not decide the merits. Instead, it sets the case for oral argument on the applications for leave to appeal and directs supplemental briefing focused on pivotal procedural and jurisdictional questions that frequently recur in UCPA litigation: (i) mootness after project completion and after missed appellate deadlines, (ii) the Court of Appeals’ power to review “duplicate” circuit court rulings once time to appeal the initial necessity determination has expired, and (iii) whether the condemnor’s good faith offer obligations extend to unknown owners and whether the condemnor must use UCPA prefiling mechanisms to identify them.

2. Summary of the Opinion (Order)

The Court:

  • Notes that it previously remanded (November 21, 2025) to the Court of Appeals—while retaining jurisdiction—to consider whether the issues were rendered moot because the project was completed before the parties sought leave.
  • After receiving the Court of Appeals’ opinion on remand (January 16, 2026), again considers the application for leave and now orders oral argument on the application under MCR 7.305(I)(1).
  • Orders supplemental briefs under MCR 7.312(E) on four specific questions:
    1. Whether the issues became moot due to either (a) failure to timely appeal the circuit court’s initial necessity determination, or (b) project completion before leave applications were filed.
    2. Whether, given UCPA procedures, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review “duplicate rulings” after the time to appeal the initial necessity determination expired.
    3. Whether the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the condemnor did not submit a good faith offer to an owner it did not know existed, considering MCL 213.55.
    4. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the condemnor was required to use MCL 213.55(2) prefiling mechanisms to identify owners for purposes of the MCL 213.55(1) good faith offer.
  • Sets argument time (40 minutes total; 20/20 split) under MCR 7.314(B)(2) and invites amicus briefing from the State Bar of Michigan’s Government Law and Administrative & Regulatory Law Sections.
  • Notes Justice Hood did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel earlier in the case.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The May 20, 2026 order does not cite any prior cases by name. Instead, it frames the dispute through statutory and court-rule questions under the UCPA and the Michigan Court Rules governing leave applications and briefing (MCR 7.305, MCR 7.312, MCR 7.314).

Practically, the absence of cited precedent is itself informative: the Court is signaling that the controlling analysis may turn on (1) the UCPA’s internal sequencing of necessity challenges, offers, and title/possession mechanisms, and (2) core justiciability and appellate-jurisdiction principles applied to condemnation’s accelerated timelines.

B. Legal Reasoning (What the Court Is Testing)

Although the Court does not resolve the issues, the order reveals the doctrinal pressure points it intends to examine. Each briefing question tees up a discrete legal “gate” that can dispose of the appeal without reaching valuation or broader merits.

1. Mootness: project completion and missed appellate timing

The Court asks whether the controversy is moot because the project is already completed and/or because the parties failed to timely appeal the initial necessity determination. This reflects two distinct mootness pathways:

  • Factual mootness: once construction is complete, a challenge to necessity or route may no longer be capable of meaningful judicial relief (e.g., unwinding a built pipeline or easement may be impracticable).
  • Procedural/temporal mootness (or forfeiture): if the UCPA and appellate rules require a prompt appeal from the initial necessity ruling, later attempts to re-litigate necessity via subsequent orders may be barred even if the case remains live in some other respect (e.g., compensation).

The Court’s framing suggests it is considering whether condemnation procedure creates a narrow, time-sensitive “window” for necessity review that cannot be reopened by later, similar rulings.

2. Appellate jurisdiction over “duplicate rulings” after the appeal period expires

The Court next asks whether the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction to review “duplicate” circuit court rulings once the time to appeal the initial necessity determination had expired. The term “duplicate rulings” implies:

  • The circuit court issued an early order upholding necessity (the UCPA’s threshold determination), and
  • Later issued a ruling that effectively repeated or reaffirmed that necessity determination—potentially prompting an appeal attempt aimed at reviving the necessity issue.

The Supreme Court’s question is whether later “repackaged” or repeated orders can restart appellate clocks or otherwise confer appellate jurisdiction when the original appeal deadline has passed. If the Court answers “no,” it would reinforce a strict finality/timeliness regime in condemnation necessity disputes. If “yes,” it could permit appellate review where subsequent orders materially alter rights or are independently appealable under the UCPA’s structure.

3. Subject-matter jurisdiction and the good faith offer when an owner is unknown

The third question asks whether the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the condemnor failed to submit a good faith offer to an owner it did not know existed, in light of MCL 213.55. This is a high-stakes framing because “subject-matter jurisdiction” defects traditionally render proceedings void and non-waivable, while ordinary statutory noncompliance often results in different remedies (abatement, dismissal without prejudice, sanctions, or cure).

By posing the issue this way, the Court is likely examining whether the UCPA’s good faith offer requirement is:

  • A true jurisdictional prerequisite to filing/maintaining a condemnation case, or
  • A mandatory but non-jurisdictional condition that can be cured or remedied without voiding the court’s power to adjudicate condemnation.

The “unknown owner” aspect adds a due-process dimension: if ownership is reasonably discoverable, the condemnor may be expected to investigate; but if ownership is not reasonably discoverable, the question becomes what the statute demands before filing and whether constructive notice procedures can substitute for an individualized offer.

4. Must a condemnor use MCL 213.55(2) prefiling mechanisms to identify owners for the MCL 213.55(1) offer?

The fourth question asks whether the Court of Appeals correctly held the condemnor was required to use MCL 213.55(2) prefiling discovery mechanisms to identify owners so that it could deliver the MCL 213.55(1) good faith offer.

This tees up an interpretation of how the UCPA’s “good faith offer” obligation interacts with its investigative tools:

  • If prefiling identification efforts are mandatory, condemning authorities and utilities may face a heightened diligence standard—especially in complex title chains, trust interests, mineral severances, or easements with multiple stakeholders.
  • If such mechanisms are permissive, condemnors may argue they satisfy the statute by offering to record-title holders and using later procedures to address newly discovered interests.

The Court’s decision on this point could effectively define what “good faith” requires in practice: merely making an offer to the owner the condemnor knows about, or taking affirmative statutory steps to ensure no owner is overlooked.

C. Impact (Why This Order Matters Even Before a Merits Decision)

Even as a procedural order, the Court’s issue selection signals likely statewide consequences in condemnation practice:

  • Acceleration of necessity litigation: A strict approach to timeliness and “duplicate rulings” would push parties to immediately appeal necessity decisions and reduce later collateral challenges.
  • Stability of completed public works: A robust mootness doctrine after completion would protect finished infrastructure from late-stage judicial disruption, channeling disputes into compensation remedies.
  • Front-loaded title diligence: A ruling that MCL 213.55(2) mechanisms must be used to identify owners could increase pre-suit investigation costs and time, but also reduce due-process risk and post-filing derailment.
  • Jurisdictional labeling consequences: If failure to make a good faith offer to an unknown owner is deemed “jurisdictional,” it could invite more dismissal motions and collateral attacks; if deemed non-jurisdictional, courts may focus on cure and prejudice rather than voidness.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Necessity determination: the early-stage ruling that the project serves a public purpose and that taking the property interest is necessary. In condemnation, this often happens before compensation is decided.
  • Good faith offer (MCL 213.55): a statutory requirement that the condemnor try to purchase the needed property interest before filing suit, generally by making an offer based on an appraisal and negotiations.
  • Prefiling discovery/mechanisms (MCL 213.55(2)): tools the statute provides to help a condemnor gather information needed to make a proper offer—here, potentially including identifying all owners/interest-holders.
  • Mootness: courts decide live disputes. If events (like completing the project) mean the court cannot provide practical relief, the case (or an issue) may be dismissed as moot.
  • Subject-matter jurisdiction: the court’s power to hear a type of case. If absent, actions can be void. Courts are cautious about calling statutory missteps “jurisdictional” because that label carries extreme consequences.
  • “Duplicate rulings”: later orders that repeat an earlier decision. The key question is whether a later repeat order can be appealed to reach an issue that should have been appealed earlier.

5. Conclusion

The May 20, 2026 Michigan Supreme Court order in Michigan Gas Utilities Corporation v. Midlam Trust positions the case as a potential vehicle to clarify core procedural rules governing condemnation challenges: whether necessity disputes can become moot after project completion; whether appellate jurisdiction can be created by later, duplicative circuit court rulings after an initial appeal deadline has lapsed; and how rigorously the UCPA’s MCL 213.55 good faith offer requirements—together with MCL 213.55(2) prefiling tools—must be followed, particularly when ownership is not initially known.

The significance lies in what comes next: the Court’s eventual resolution may either (a) tighten timeliness and mootness doctrines to stabilize completed projects and streamline litigation, or (b) expand enforceable prefiling diligence duties to protect all property interest-holders—potentially reshaping condemnation practice across Michigan.