DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION V NOVEL SAFOU
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
UNPUBLISHED
July 2, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 189707
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 93-460328 CC
NOVEL SAFOU, a/k/a NOUEL
SAFOU and MARTHA SAFOU,
Defendants-Appellees.
ON REMAND
And
NATALIE, INC., d/b/a STOP AND SHOP,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: MacKenzie, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Cavanagh, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the condemnation of a convenience store owned by defendants Safou and
leased to defendant Natalie, Inc. Following a trial, the jury set the total value of the real estate at
$205,000 and, in an advisory opinion, allocated $155,000 to the Safous as feeholders and $50,000 to
Natalie as leaseholder. The trial court entered a judgment reflecting those values. Natalie appealed,
contending that the judgment improperly valued its leasehold. In an unpublished opinion per curiam
issued May 30, 1997, this Court concluded that, while the valuation of the Safous’ fee was within the
range of testimony presented, the valuation of Natalie’s leasehold was not. Accordingly, we affirmed
the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it valued the Safous’ feehold interest at $155,000. We
vacated those portions of the judgment setting the value of the leasehold and, consequently, the overall
value of the real estate, and remanded for new trial on the value of Natalie’s leasehold. The Department
of Transportation appealed this Court’s decision. In an order entered September 9, 1998, the Supreme
-1
Court, in lieu of granting leave, vacated our decision and remanded as on rehearing granted. Dep’t of
Transportation v Safou, 459 Mich 860-861 (1998).
In its order, the Supreme Court stated that this Court erred in vacating the $205,000 overall
value of the real estate. 459 Mich 861. We adhere to our conclusion in our prior opinion, that the
allocation of the $205,000 award was improper because the amount allocated for Natalie’s leasehold
was not within the range of the evidence. Accordingly, we now affirm the total award of $205,000,
vacate the allocated values of the parties’ respective interests, and remand for a reallocation of the
$205,000 award between the Safous and Natalie that is within the range of the evidence that was
presented at trial. 1
Although the Supreme Court vacated our previous decision, it expressed no opinion with regard
to our second holding, where we affirmed a verdict of $0.00 to Natalie for alleged going-concern
damages. That is understandable given the posture of the case before the Supreme Court. To avoid
any confusion on remand, however, we again affirm the $0.00 award for the reasons stated in our May
30, 1997 opinion.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a reallocation of the $205,000 award. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
1
The testimony presented at trial regarding the valuation of Natalie’s leasehold interest ranged from
$97,500 to $108,000. Testimony regarding the valuation of the Safou’s freehold ranged from $47,000
to $221,600.
-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.
