‘We’re on our way to the (Michigan) Supreme Court.?
So said Oxford Village Attorney Bob Bunting in light of the state Court of Appeals recent denial of the village’s motion requesting it reconsider its decision concerning the Grove lawsuit, which centers around about a third of the parking in downtown’s northeast quadrant.
On Feb. 14, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a 2004 Oakland County Circuit Court ruling that the village ‘abused its discretion? by determining free parking to be a necessity and therefore a reason to condemn two private parcels totalling approximately 28,086 square feet owned by Nathan Grove.
‘You’re actually bound to give the Court of Appeals an opportunity to correct themselves ? to take a second look at things they didn’t fully appreciate before,? said Bunting, commenting on the failed motion for reconsideration.
‘Now, the procedural step is we have to file a brief in support of why this is a public interest issue under the (state) Supreme Court rules,? said the attorney, noting the village has 42 days to do this.
Once Grove’s attorney has issued his brief, the state Supreme Court then decides if it will hear the case.
‘That usually takes several months,? Bunting said.
Grove, who also owns Grove’s True Value Hardware, owns two parcels containing roughly 56 parking spaces and a loading zone in the heart of downtown’s northeast quadrant.
From 1974 to Jan. 1, 2002, the Groves leased the northeast quadrant parcels to the village for $1 per year in rent, free maintenance and improvement of the property and no assessment of property taxes on them.
In 2002, the village rejected Grove’s proposal to lease the parking lot to the municipality for $4,000 per month for 20 years (with an annual 3 percent inflationary increase), saying the cost was too high.
The village then attempted to buy the property for $170,000 based on an appraisal it had done, but Grove rejected the offer indicating he intended to barricade the area and convert it into a pay-to-park lot. Grove believed the village’s purchase offer was low considering the land and its potential to become a pay-to-park operation were worth in excess of $1 million in his opinion.
This led the village in July 2002 to institute a condemnation proceeding based on free public parking as a necessity. The village cited the economic viability of downtown businesses, traffic flow and emergency vehicle access as things that would be negatively impacted by blocking off the area and turning it into a pay-to-park facility.
Despite having two courts reject its determination that free public parking is a necessity and basis for attempting to take Grove’s private property, the village decided to press on.
On March 14, council voted 4-0 to authorize its attorneys ‘to persevere through the court systems with financial contribution by the DDA.?
The DDA on March 20 voted 6-0 to ‘contribute up to $20,000 or 50 percent whichever is less to go to the next course of legal action? in the Grove case.
Since April 2002, the village and DDA have spent more than $72,000 in legal fees on the Grove case.
Should the state Supreme Court decide to hear the case and the village loses a third time, the municipality will be obligated to pay Grove’s attorney bills as well.
Grove said he’s not sure exactly how much he’s spent in legal fees, but it’s ‘right on par? with the village’s amount.
Bunting said the village is appealing to the state Supreme Court because the Court of Appeals based its decision on an incorrect assumption.
‘One of our big issues is they assume that he would always use it for parking, but under the way they drafted their opinion, he could use it for any number of uses,? he said. ‘The assumption is if he’s going to use it for parking, what’s the beef? But that’s not the way it may come down.?
‘Given that parking was a necessity, that defendant (Grove) intended to provide parking and that there was no basis in fact for plaintiff’s (village) conclusion that parking had to be free, the trial court did not err in its determination of necessity,? wrote the Court of Appeals in its Feb. 14 decision.
‘If there was an order of the Court of Appeals that said as long as he uses it for parking we cannot exercise our condemnation powers, we wouldn’t be appealing,? Bunting said. ‘But they didn’t say that. They left it wide open.?
In July 2005, it was learned that Grove has a purchase agreement in place for the northeast quadrant properties with local businessman and real estate investor Bob Knauf.
The amount of the purchase agreement was not disclosed, but Grove indicated at the time he needed the funds for another business venture.
Since then, Knauf has unsuccessfully attempted to use the parking property as a bargaining chip in proposed trades for other village and DDA owned properties.
On Tuesday, Grove said the purchase agreement is still in place. The parties are waiting on some environmental testing and to see what happens with the lawsuit.