Court Of Appeals Clarifies Right To Farm Act’s Reach Over Pre-2000 Ordinances

Township of Fraser v Harvey Haney

• Opinion Approved for Publication: August 8, 2025 (O’Brien, P.J. and M. J. Kelly and Korobkin, JJ.)

• Docket No. 368834

• Bay County Circuit Court

Holding: The Right to Farm Act (RTFA) may be invoked with regard to ordinances enacted before 2000 where those ordinances are subject to prospective enforcement for post-2000 activities.

Facts: Harvey Haney purchased commercial-zoned property in Fraser Township in 1986. Although livestock was never permitted under the zoning ordinance, Haney began raising deer and elk in 1989 after a township supervisor allegedly told him his acreage was “close enough” to meet requirements. He later added mule foot hogs and created a piggery in 2006. State enforcement actions shut down the deer and elk operation in 2016, after which the Township claimed it first learned pigs were present and filed a nuisance abatement suit. Haney argued that the Right to Farm Act (RTFA), laches, and equitable estoppel barred enforcement. After a bench trial, the trial court granted the Township’s request for an injunction.

Key Appellate Ruling:

The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in ruling the RTFA was inapplicable on nonretroactivity grounds. Because Haney’s pig operation began after the 2000 amendment to the RTFA, the statute’s preemption provision could apply prospectively even to ordinances enacted before 2000. The court agreed Haney’s activities constituted a “farm operation” under the RTFA, but remanded for findings on whether he complied with applicable generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPs).

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s finding that the Township acted diligently, rejecting Haney’s laches defense, as it reasonably believed the animals had been removed in 2012 and acted promptly upon discovering the pigs in 2016. The Court of Appeals further affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Haney’s equitable estoppel defense, finding no “exceptional circumstances” and no formal approval by the Township. At most, Haney received informal remarks from an official, which cannot bar ordinance enforcement.

The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court for factual findings of whether Haney complied with the GAAMPs, a burden borne by Haney by a preponderance of the evidence.