|
No. 130125 130126, 130127
| Carrier Creek Drainage District, |
|
Michael G. Woodworth |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
v (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Eaton - Eveland, T.) |
|
|
| Land One, L.L.C., |
|
Graham K. Crabtree |
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
William D. Tomblin |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Carrier Creek Drainage District, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
|
|
| ECHO 45, L.L.C., |
|
|
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Carrier Creek Drainage District, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| vs |
|
|
| Land One, L.L.C., |
|
|
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Standard Federal Bank, f/k/a Michigan |
|
|
| National Bank, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff/Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff/Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Plaintiff/Appellee's Response in Opposition to Real Property Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Plaintiff/Appellee's Reply Brief to Michigan Association of Realtors' Amicus Curiae Brief >>
Plaintiff/Appellee's Supplemental Authority>>
Defendants/Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants/Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants/Appellants'
Reply Brief>>
Michigan Association of Realtors' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan Real Property Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan Real Property Law Section's Response in Opposition to Motion for Leave to
File Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Carrier Creek Drainage District sought to buy certain properties in Eaton County for a drain improvement project, but the two corporate landowners, Land One, L.L.C. and Echo 45, L.L.C., rejected Carrier Creek’s good-faith offers. Carrier Creek then filed three eminent domain lawsuits against the landowners, which are companies owned by the same real estate developer. Carrier Creek sought to have the properties condemned for the project, but the landowners claimed that they were entitled to additional compensation for the condemned property because the property might be rezoned. Carrier Creek argued that this possibility-of-rezoning claim was not timely filed under MCL 213.55(3). That statute requires landowners to file a written claim for any additional compensation sought within 90 days of receiving a good-faith offer for their land, or within 60 days of the date that a condemnation lawsuit is filed. The statute states that, if such a written claim is not filed, the claim is barred. The trial court agreed with Carrier Creek that MCL 213.55(3) applied, and excluded the possibility-of-rezoning claim because of the landowners’ failure to comply with the statute’s notice requirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion. The court reviewed the legal authority regarding possibility-of-rezoning claims and observed that, “because the possibility of rezoning affects the price that a willing buyer would have offered for the property prior to the taking, it is compensable if proved.” It is therefore, the court concluded, a claim for “compensable damage” that was required to be disclosed within the time limits set forth in MCL 213.55(3). The landowners appeal.
Top of Page
|
