Court Upholds City Ordinance Assessing Costs against Owners of Abandoned Homes

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently upheld a challenge to a Battle Creek ordinance imposing a fee against the owners of abandoned residential property.

In Kenefick v City of Battle Creek, __ Mich App __ (2009) (approved for publication July 2, 2009), a city ordinance requiring owners of abandoned homes to pay a "monitoring fee" was challenged on grounds that it was both unconstitutionally vague and violated the Equal Protection Clause. Both arguments failed to persuade the Court of Appeals.

"When these common dictionary definitions are viewed in context of the language of the entire ordinance—the stated purpose of which is to eliminate dangerous and unsightly blight, we conclude that a person of ordinary intelligence would be placed on fair notice of what the ordinance requires or proscribes."

In addressing the Equal Protection Argument, the Court of Appeals applied the rational basis test and concluded the ordinance was constitutional.

"The ordinance’s stated purpose is to overcome the detrimental affects of neighborhood blight and reduce enforcement costs associated with the blight. This Court has held 'protecting and promoting public health, safety, and general welfare are legitimate governmental interests . . . and protecting aesthetic value is included in the concept of the general welfare.' (citation omitted) Thus, the general reduction of blight is undisputedly a legitimate governmental purpose."

A copy of the slip opinion can be found here.

Questions? Contact Peter Cavanaugh or call (248) 543-8320.

Michigan Seller Disclosure Act -- No Claim for Innocent Misrepresentation, Supreme Court Affirms Ruling

On June 17, 2009, Michigan Supreme Court entered an order affirming a 2008 Michigan Court of Appeals decision, which had held that Michigan law did not recognize claims for innocent misrepresentation under the Michigan Seller Disclosure Act (MCL 565.951, et seq).

As we reported in an earlier posting (here), Roberts v Saffell involved a claim that Defendant Sellers failed to disclose a termite infestation in the home they sold to Plaintiff Buyers. Plaintiff's claim was based on Defendant's "No" answer on their Seller Disclosure Statement in response to the question: "History of infestation, if any: (termites, carpenter ants, etc.)"

In affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Michigan Supreme Court held:

the [Michigan Seller Disclosure Act] provides that a seller is “not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission in any information delivered pursuant to this act if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the transferor . . . .” MCL 565.955(1). Thus, because a claim for innocent misrepresentation requires that a defendant make a false statement without knowledge of its falsity, the Court of Appeals correctly held that innocent misrepresentation does not constitute a viable cause of action under the SDA. Whether defendants did or did not possess personal knowledge of the infestation is a matter not before this Court as a result of plaintiffs’ abandonment of their fraudulent misrepresentation claim and their exclusive focus on their innocent misrepresentation claim.

Full Cite: Roberts v Saffell, 280 Mich App 397 (2008), aff'd, 483 Mich 1089 (2009).

Bottom line: Always have your own home inspection done before buying a house!

Questions? Contact Peter Cavanaugh or call (248) 543-8320.

New Bill Would Create "Commercial Real Estate Broker's Lien Act"

On May 14, 2008, Sen. Randy Richardville (R. Monroe) introduced S.B. 1313, which would create the "Commercial Real Estate Broker's Lien Act". The bill was reported out of committee on October 2, 2008.

The bill would do all of the following:

• Specify circumstances under which a commercial real estate broker's lien would attach to commercial real estate.
  

• Require a claim of lien to be recorded before conveyance unless the broker's commission was due in installments and at least one was due after conveyance.

• Provide for the recording and attachment of a lien in the case of a lease agreement, a broker's acting as a buyer's agent, or a commission owed on a purchase option.

• Specify information that would have to be included in a claim of lien.

• Provide that a prior-recorded lien or mortgage would have priority over a commercial real estate broker's lien.

• Require the establishment of an escrow account if a lien recorded under the proposed Act would prevent a closing transaction.

• Authorize a person claiming a commercial real estate broker's lien to bring an action to enforce it in circuit court.

• Allow an owner of commercial real estate to serve on a lien holder a demand to enforce the lien or answer a claim; and provide that the lien would be extinguished if the lien holder did not respond within 30 days.

• Specify that a lien under the Act would be available only to a licensed real estate broker.

A commercial real estate broker's lien would attach to commercial real estate in favor of a real estate broker if all of the following circumstances existed:

• The real estate broker had a written commission agreement.

• The broker was entitled to a commission under that agreement.

• The broker recorded a claim of lien before the actual conveyance of the commercial real estate.

To track the progress of S.B. 1313, click here. 

Update: S.B. 1313 died, but a similar bill was introduced on May 27, 2009, S.B. 610, that would also create a lien statute for commercial real estate brokers.  

On October 5, 2010, S.B. 610 was signed into law by Governor Granholm as PA 201 of 2010. The new law is effective immediately.

Michigan Seller Disclosure Act (SDA): Innocent Misrepresentation Not a Claim under SDA Rules Michigan Court of Appeals

Holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA) (MCL 565.951, et seq), the Michigan Court of Appeals recently reversed a judgment awarding Plaintiffs $86,813 in damages and costs and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in favor of the Defendant-Sellers. Roberts v Saffell, ___ Mich App ___ (2008) (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-67463 - 12 pages) (published opinion) (Markey, J., joined by Wilder, J.) (White, J., dissenting). On appeal from the Leelanau County Circuit Court; Rodgers, J.. Click here for the slip opinion.

In this case, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants failed to disclose a termite infestation in the home they purchased from Defendants. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs successfully moved for dismissal of all claims, except one for innocent misrepresentation. This claim was based on Defendants' "No" answer on their Seller Disclosure Statement in response to the item "History of infestation, if any: (termites, carpenter ants, etc.)"

The Court of Appeals found nothing in the plain terms of the act requiring a transferor of property covered by the SDA "to exercise ordinary care to discover defects in the property being transferred." The act requires a transferor "to answer all items required by MCL 565.957 honestly, based on information actually known to the transferor at the time the SDS is completed." Apart from the SDS, the Legislature had not modified the rule of caveat emptor and its common law exceptions imposing liability for fraud.

A transferor cannot "be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in the SDS unless they were within his personal knowledge." Since liability for innocent misrepresentation can be imposed "without regard to whether the party making the representation knew it was false or was acting in good faith and because MCL 565.955(1) precludes imposition of liability on transferors who lack personal knowledge with respect to errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in an SDS, there is no liability for a disclosure made on an SDS under a theory of innocent misrepresentation."