It looks like the third time was the charm.
After losing in two courts, the Village of Oxford won its first victory Friday in the Michigan Supreme Court regarding the northeast parking property owned by the Knauf family.
The state Supreme Court reversed the February 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals which upheld a 2004 Oakland County Circuit Court ruling that the village ‘abused its discretion? by determining free public parking to be a necessity and using it as a basis to condemn private property. The case was remanded back to circuit court for further proceedings before Judge Fred Mester.
‘The Supreme Court has surprised us all here,? said local attorney Lee Knauf, speaking on behalf of his family. ‘We go right back to where we were. I feel sorry for the judge.?
Village attorney Bob Bunting could not be reached for comment as to the village’s interpretation of this order.
At issue is approximately 28,000 square feet of private property of downtown Oxford’s northeast quadrant containing about 56 parking spaces previously used by the village to provide free public parking.
Originally owned by the Grove family, the property was sold to the Knaufs for an undisclosed amount in April 2006. The Knaufs closed a majority of their parking spaces to the public in August.
In 2002, after attempting to purchase the land for $170,000, the village filed a condemnation action in circuit court to take ownership of the privately-owned property, claiming free public parking is a necessity.
Necessity places the burden of proof upon the government to provide evidence that there is a need to exercise eminent domain ? the legal act of government seizing ownership of property.
The term ‘condemnation? is used to describe the act of a government exercising its power of eminent domain. In the two-page Oct. 20 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals and circuit court ‘erroneously reviewed the wisdom of the (village’s) decision? when it ‘independently reconsidered? the stance that public parking had to be free of charge ‘rather than review the necessity of acquiring the (Knaufs?) property.?
In other words, the lower courts shouldn’t have judged the village’s position that public parking has to be free. They should only have reviewed whether or not there was necessity for the taking.
‘The Supreme Court says you can’t determine necessity based on whether it’s wise or not,? Knauf said. ‘In other words, (the lower courts) used the wrong standard to determine there was no necessity.?
‘Now, the million-dollar question, literally, is what is the standard for determining necessity?? he explained. ‘And nobody knows. At least nobody on our side knows. We’re at a loss. We don’t know what standard the judge is supposed to use in this case.?
Unlike when government condemns private property for established public uses such as expanding an airport or widening a highway, there is no existing, defined standard on the books for determining whether free public parking is a necessity for taking property, according to Knauf.
The question becomes is free parking a public purpose?
‘We don’t have another standard in our mind to give to Judge Mester and say, ‘Oh, wisdom doesn’t work, here use this one,?? he said. ‘It’s not like you have a cookbook. It’s not like you can say well there’s all these criteria, (a list of) one through 12, to determine whether free public parking is a necessity or not. We don’t know of such a case in the United States. There isn’t one in Michigan, I know that.
The state Supreme Court ‘did a bit of a disservice to everybody by not telling us what they want done,? explained Knauf. ‘They punted is what they did. We don’t know what to do with it other than to go back to Judge Mester.?
‘If you can’t use common sense or wisdom from that bench down in the circuit court, I guess we’re all kinda in trouble.?