VILLAGE OF OXFORD V NATHAN GROVE FAMILY LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF OXFORD,
UNPUBLISHED
February 14, 2006
APPROVED FOR
PUBLICATION
April 25, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 258060
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 02-042244-CC
NATHAN GROVE FAMILY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
OXFORD BANK, JOAN WECKLE, DAVID
WECKLE and CAPAC STATE SAVINGS BANK,
Official Reported Version
Defendants.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Sawyer and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff village of Oxford appeals as of right a circuit court order granting the motion by
defendant Nathan Grove Family, LLC, that challenged the necessity of the taking in this
condemnation case. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
The parties and the trial court erred in treating defendant's motion as one for summary
disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The purpose of such a motion is to determine if a
genuine issue of fact exists for trial. Marlo Beauty Supply, Inc v Farmers Ins Group of Cos, 227
Mich App 309, 320-321; 575 NW2d 324 (1998), mod on other grounds by Hart v Farmers Ins
Exch, 461 Mich 1 (1999). However, a challenge to necessity is to be determined by the court,
not by a jury. City of Kalamazoo v KTS Industries, Inc, 263 Mich App 23, 40-41; 687 NW2d
319 (2004). The court is not to determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists for trial, but is to
decide the issue of necessity at a hearing held for that purpose. MCL 213.56(3).
The trial court determined that plaintiff had the statutory authority to condemn private
property for public parking, MCL 213.23. If a public corporation has authority to condemn
-1-
property, the proposed taking must not only advance one of the three objectives enumerated in
MCL 213.23, "but it must also be 'necessary' to that end." Wayne Co v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445,
463; 684 NW2d 765 (2004). "[T]he determination of necessity is left not to the courts but to the
public agency, which in this case is the [village]." City of Novi v Robert Adell Children's Funded
Trust, 473 Mich 242, 253; 701 NW2d 144 (2005). A public agency's determination of necessity
"is binding on the court in the absence of a showing of fraud, error of law, or abuse of
discretion." MCL 213.56(2). Thus, the court is to determine whether fraud, error, or abuse of
discretion has been shown. Novi, supra at 253. The party opposing the condemnation bears the
burden of proving fraud, error, or abuse of discretion. Hathcock, supra at 466.
The trial court in this case determined that defendant had shown an abuse of discretion.
"An abuse of discretion occurs when an unprejudiced person considering the facts upon which
the decision was made would say that there was no justification or excuse for the decision."
Novi, supra at 254. The trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 249. "A
finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Forfeiture
of $19,250, 209 Mich App 20, 29; 530 NW2d 759 (1995). The trial court's legal conclusions are
reviewed de novo. Novi, supra at 249.
By virtue of its resolution, plaintiff determined that the taking was necessary. The parties
seemed to agree that parking in general is necessary in any downtown area, and even defendant's
expert suggested that defendant's property was a main source of parking space in the northeast
quadrant, having a peak usage of 75 percent. Certainly if defendant did not intend to operate a
parking lot, thereby depriving plaintiff of a significant portion of the available parking in the
area, it could be argued that the taking was necessary. However, defendant intended to maintain
the property for use as a parking lot. The dispute centered on whether parking had to be free.
Plaintiff 's expert's opinions about free parking apply equally to paid parking. It is the
availability of parking to serve citizens seeking safe and convenient access to public and private
facilities in the area that is crucial to the continued vitality of the area, and paid parking fulfills
that function as well as free parking. Defendant showed that plaintiff 's determination that paid
parking was detrimental to the public was based on pure speculation. No study or other
objective evidence showed that citizens would drive around neighborhoods or crowd into other
areas of the village to avoid paid parking, or would cease patronizing businesses in the area
altogether if parking were not free. The characterization of the lot as a "choke-point" seemed to
indicate that it is in a central location accessible by several routes leading into the area.
However, because it is utilized for parking rather than through traffic, it is unclear how closing it
to all but paying customers would increase traffic congestion or interfere with emergency
vehicles' access to the area. Given that parking was a necessity, that defendant intended to
provide parking, and that there was no basis in fact for plaintiff 's conclusion that parking had to
be free, the trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiff abused its discretion in determining
that the taking was necessary.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
