GATCHBY PROPERTIES LP V ANTRIM CO ROAD COMM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GATCHBY PROPERTIES, L.P.,
UNPUBLISHED
October 13, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
ANTRIM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
TOWNSHIP OF HELENA, ASSOCIATION FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS, and
MICHAEL CRAWFORD,
No. 217417
Antrim Circuit Court
LC No. 97-007232-CH
Defendant-Appellees,
and
ISABEL AMERSON,
Defendant.
Before: White, P.J., and Talbot and R.J. Danhof*, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion except with respect to the condemnation issue. While I agree
that the court erred in granting summary disposition to defendants on the affirmative defense of
condemnation based on a “presumption of regularity,” I do not agree that plaintiff was entitled to
judgment on this affirmative defense. Here, even without the presumption of regularity, there was
evidence that a condemnation had taken place. Although supporting documentation was missing from
the records, the two-page handwritten document of the commissioner recited compliance with the
statute. While not conclusive, this was evidence of a condemnation. 1 Later plats were consistent with
1
The significance of this evidence might depend on other evidence regarding the records. For example,
if none of the other records of condemnations include the supporting documentation, this might indicate
(continued…)
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the earlier successful condemnation of the property. Further, there was evidence from which a trier of
fact could conclude that the “opened and worked” requirement was satisfied. Thus, I conclude that
there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a valid condemnation, and that
neither party was entitled to summary disposition on the issue. In all other respects, I join in the majority
opinion.
/s/ Helene N. White
(…continued)
that as a matter of practice, and in the ordinary course of business, the supporting documentation was
discarded at some point. However, if the supporting documentation regarding condemnations around
the same time period is present, this might indicate that there was some irregularity in this particular
condemnation.
-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.
