HERMAN J ANDERSON V INDIAN VILLAGE MANOR ASSOCIATES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
HERMAN J. ANDERSON and MARIE A.
ANDERSON,
UNPUBLISHED
April 30, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
INDIAN VILLAGE MANOR ASSOCIATES,
LLC, INDIAN VILLAGE MANOR
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, FARBMAN
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., FARBMAN
MANAGEMENT GROUP,
No. 228358
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-841301-CH
Defendants-Appellants,
and
ART CENTRE APARTMENTS COMPANY,
SIDNEY L. COHN, E. BRYCE ALPERN and
HARRIET ALPERN as trustees of the E. BRYCE
ALPERN Living Trust, ROBERT I. ALPERN and
MARJORIE ALPERN as trustees of the ROBERT
I. ALPERN Living Trust, DWIGHT ALPERN,
NANCY ALPERN, ABBEY ALPERN, HARLAN
D. ALPERN, WAYNE ALPERN, CAROLYN
ALPERN, CAROLYN ALPERN VITRIOL, CITY
OF DETROIT, and FIRST CHICAGO NBD,
Defendants.
HERMAN J. ANDERSON and MARIE A.
ANDERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
No. 228360
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-841301-CH
ART CENTRE APARTMENTS COMPANY,
SIDNEY L. COHN, E. BRYCE ALPERN and
-1-
HARRIET ALPERN as trustees of the E. BRYCE
ALPERN Living Trust, ROBERT I. ALPERN and
MARJORIE ALPERN as trustees of the ROBERT
I. ALPERN Living Trust, DWIGHT ALPERN,
NANCY ALPERN, ABBEY ALPERN, HARLAN
D. ALPERN, WAYNE ALPERN, CAROLYN
ALPERN, CAROLYN ALPERN VITRIOL,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
INDIAN VILLAGE MANOR ASSOCIATES,
LLC, INDIAN VILLAGE MANOR
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, FARBMAN
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., FARBMAN
MANAGEMENT GROUP, and CITY OF
DETROIT,
Defendants.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Neff and Saad, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated action, the Art Centre defendants1 and the IVMA defendants2 appeal
by leave granted an order certifying plaintiffs’ action as a class action. We reverse and remand.
Detroit Ordinance 400-H, § 16, gives tenants in residential apartment buildings having
more than four units the right of first refusal to jointly purchase their building if the owner offers
it for sale to a condominium developer. In January 1998, the Art Centre defendants sold Indian
Village Manor (IVM), an historical luxury apartment building in Detroit, to defendant Indian
Village Manor Associates, LLC (IVMA), without first offering it to the IVM tenants. IVMA
converted IVM into a condominium called Indian Village Manor Condominium Association
(IVMCA). Plaintiffs, Herman and Marie Anderson, who were IVM tenants, brought a class
action suit to enforce their rights and the rights of other IVM tenants under the ordinance. The
trial court certified the action as a class action, and these appeals followed.
1
Art Centre Apartments Company, Sidney L. Cohn, E. Bryce Alpern and Harriet Alpern in their
representative capacity as trustees of the E. Bryce Alpern Living Trust, Robert I. Alpern and
Marjorie Alpern in their representative capacity as trustees of the Robert I. Alpern Living Trust,
Dwight Alpern, Nancy Alpern, Abbey Alpern, Harlan D. Alpern, Wayne Alpern, Carolyn
Alpern, and Carolyn Alpern Vitriol.
2
Indian Village Manor Associates, LLC, Indian Village Manor Condominium Association,
Farbman Development Group, Inc., and Farbman Management Group.
-2-
This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on class certification under the clearly erroneous
standard. Zine v Chrysler Corp, 236 Mich App 261, 270; 600 NW2d 384 (1999). Generally
speaking, factual findings are clearly erroneous if there is no evidence to support them or there is
evidence to support them but this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made. Id. On the record before us, we are unable to determine whether clear error
occurred because neither the court’s conclusory statement on the record at the end of the hearing
granting plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class nor its written order of the same date certifying the
class adequately address the requirements of MCR 3.501(A)(1).
The provisions of MCR 3.501(A)(1) with regard to class certification as they apply to this
case are extensive and require careful attention. The applicable provisions of the rule are as
follows:
(A) Nature of Class Action.
(1) One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative
parties on behalf of all members in a class action only if:
(a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
that predominate over questions affecting only individual members;
(c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class;
(d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect
the interests of the class; and
(e) the maintenance of the action as a class action will be superior to other
available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of
justice. [MCR 3.501(A).]
(2) In determining whether the maintenance of the action as a class action will
be superior to other available methods of adjudication in promoting the
convenient administration of justice, the court shall consider among other matters
the following factors:
(a) whether the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual
members of the class would create a risk of
(i) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
members of the class that would confront the party opposing the class with
incompatible standards of conduct; or
(ii) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that
would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members
not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their
ability to protect their interests;
-3-
(b) whether final equitable or declaratory relief might be appropriate with
respect to the class;
(c) whether the action will be manageable as a class action;
(d) whether in view of the complexity of the issues or the expense of
litigation the separate claims of individual class members are insufficient in
amount to support separate actions;
(e) whether it is probable that the amount which may be recovered by
individual class members will be large enough in relation to the expense and
effort of administering the action to justify a class action; and
(f) whether members of the class have a significant interest in controlling
the prosecutor or defense of separate actions.
After a brief hearing on plaintiff’s motion to certify the class and without taking any
testimony or evidence, the trial judge simply announced “The Court is satisfied that the
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification should be granted without prejudice.” No analysis of
any of the court rule requirements was provided.
The order which was entered to effectuate this ruling was likewise terse and addressed
the court rule requirements in cursory fashion, again, with no analysis of any of the required
factors under the court rule. For instance, the order addresses the numerosity requirement of
section (1)(a) by simply reciting the number of potential plaintiffs without explaining why
joinder of all of them would be impractical. As to section (1)(b), the order arguably can be read
to conclude that there are common questions of fact or law, but contains no discussion or
explanation that these common questions predominate over questions affecting only individual
members.
The order concludes that maintenance of a class action is superior to other methods of
adjudication, but completely neglects to address the factors of MCR 3.501(A)(2) which provides
that “the court shall consider among other matters” the enumerated factors.
On this scant record we cannot determine the basis for the court’s decision to certify the
class and therefore cannot review it for error on appeal. Reversed and remanded for proceedings
in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Henry William Saad
-4-
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.
