|
No. 130990
| Bloomfield Estates Improvement Association, Inc., |
|
Ronald S. Nixon |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Tyner, D.) |
|
|
| City of Birmingham, |
|
|
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Timothy J. Currier |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
The city of Birmingham decided to fence one acre of 55-acre Springdale Park for a park where dogs are allowed to run without being leashed. The park property was originally purchased in 1928 by Bloomfield Township for a public park that would be of “particular benefit to the village of Birmingham.” The park, which originally included plans for an airstrip, a baseball diamond and grandstand for local teams, and a “community house” for dances, was developed over the next several years. In March 1938, Bloomfield Township and the city of Bloomfield Hills quit claimed the property, including several lots in Bloomfield Estates subdivision, to the city of Birmingham. But when the property was conveyed, so too were the deed restrictions that limit use of the lots “for strictly residential purposes only.” In 2004, the city fenced off a portion of one lot for a dog park. Bloomfield Estates subdivision sued the city to enforce the deed restriction. The trial judge granted summary disposition in favor of the city, concluding that the deed restriction was not violated because a dog park is consistent with residential use and the city’s zoning ordinance. In a divided, unpublished opinion per curiam, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the city had violated the deed restrictions. Though equity would not allow the subdivision to enforce the deed restriction prohibiting use of the property as a park, the majority said, the dog park was a more serious violation and could be challenged. The city appeals.
Top of Page
|
