Law & Justice
Michigan Appeals Court Bars Homeowner from Re‑filing Tree Removal Case
A dispute between two neighbours in Livingston County, Michigan, over trees that threatened a barn ended when the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the homeowner could not bring a second lawsuit over the same trees. Seth Merle and Richard Hagopian had agreed to split the cost of removing trees that grew on Hagopian’s property and extended onto Merle’s barn. They signed a written agreement that each would pay $2,000, and Merle would arrange the work; if the work could not be completed, he would return Hagopian’s money. The trees were never removed, and Hagopian sued in small‑claims court to recover his $2,000. The judge found in Hagopian’s favour, ordered Merle to return the money and court costs, and rejected Merle’s claim that Hagopian had been negligent in maintaining the trees. Merle then filed a new lawsuit alleging that the trees were dangerous and that Hagopian had failed to maintain them. Hagopian argued that the earlier court had already decided the matter. The trial court dismissed the new case, noting that Merle had already raised the issue of negligence in the first case. Merle appealed, but on September 23 the Court of Appeals held that the issue had already been decided and that Merle could not re‑file a case over the same alleged failure to maintain the trees. The court explained that once a dispute has been resolved, the parties generally cannot return to court with claims arising from the same issue.