Bonner v. City Of Brighto

Facts

Ps own two residential properties located in downtown Brighton. The three structures on them have been unoccupied and largely ignored and unmaintained for over 30 years, representing the most egregious instances of residential blight in D. D's code enforcement official informed Ps in a letter that the structures on the two properties constituted unsafe structures under and public nuisances under Michigan common law. D cited a litany of alleged defects and code violations in regard to the condition of the structures. Ps were further informed that it had been determined that it was unreasonable to repair the structures as defined in BCO § 18-59 and that the structures were a public nuisance and may be ordered demolished without option on the part of the owner to repair. P appealed the determination to the city council. Ps retained a structural engineer and various contractors to determine the repairs necessary to bring each structure into compliance with the applicable building codes. The affidavit addressed the condition of the structures relative to their professional field and provided cost estimates with respect to the proposed repairs. These individuals prepared drawings and repair plans and asserted that the structures were safe, structurally sound, and readily repairable. Ps agreed to provide the building official with an expert's report and to allow D personnel access to the structures for purposes of exterior and interior inspections. The city council tabled the appeal pending the inspections. Ps authorized their contractors to commence some repairs, and applications for building permits were submitted to D.  The permits were denied. Ps did not complete any repairs. D obtained administrative search warrants for the properties. The search warrants authorized a search, inspection, and examination of the interior and exterior of each structure to determine whether they were in compliance with applicable laws, codes, and ordinances. D identified extensive defects and code violations, requiring numerous repairs and the replacement of certain structural features. D claimed that it would be unreasonable to repair them, BCO § 18-59 and that therefore, demolition was required. The pending appeal to the city council was resumed, and hearings were conducted. D and his experts opined that the total cost to bring the structures up to code was approximately $158,000. The city determined the cash value of the structures at approximately $85,000. Ps' experts opined that it would cost less than $40,000 per house to make the necessary repairs and bring the structures up to code. The council agreed with D and ordered Ps to demolish the structures within 60 days. Ps sued D alleging a violation of procedural and substantive due process, a violation of equal protection, inverse condemnation or a regulatory taking, contempt of court, common-law and statutory slander of title, and a violation of Michigan housing laws. Eventually, P filed a motion for partial summary judgment and the trial court determined 18-59 was entirely arbitrary and shocked the conscious. The court reasoned that the cost of repairs is irrelevant to the issue of health and safety related to the properties. Ps had the right to bring the properties up to code no matter what the cost and D’s only allowing them to do so if the cost of repair was reasonable had no relation to the objectives of the statute. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.