Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CROWN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED February 11, 2010

Nos. 285258; 288429 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 00-012666-CC

Before: Beckering, P.J., and Markey and Borrello, JJ. PER CURIAM. This case involves a condemnation action. In Docket No. 285258, defendant Crown Enterprises Inc. appeals as of right a judgment, following a jury trial, awarding it $2 million as just compensation for 19.09 acres of property that plaintiff City of Detroit condemned for use in the Conner Creek Combined Sewerage Overflow Basin Project. In Docket No. 288429, defendant appeals by leave granted1 an order denying defendant's motion for compound interest on the judgment. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History In 1995, defendant entered into an agreement to purchase 71.57 acres of land from Chrysler Corporation. The property purchased by defendant consisted of a 52.48-acre parcel, which defendant purchased for $2,361,645, and a 19.09 parcel, which defendant purchased for $200,000. On April 18, 2000, plaintiff filed an eminent domain action against defendant, seeking to take the 19.09-acre parcel for construction of its Conner Creek Combined Sewerage Overflow Basin.2 Pursuant to MCL 213.55, plaintiff made a good faith written offer to acquire the property from defendant for $1,223,000. Defendant rejected the offer, and there was a jury

Detroit v Crown Enterprises Inc., unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 10, 2009 (Docket No. 288429). In its order granting leave to appeal, this Court, on its own motion, consolidated the case with Docket No. 285258.
2

1

The trial court granted summary disposition in plaintiff's favor regarding the necessity of the taking, and this Court affirmed. Detroit v Crown Enterprises, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 19, 2002 (Docket No. 232451).

-1-

trial to determine just compensation for the taking. At trial, the parties submitted conflicting evidence regarding the highest and best use of the property at issue and the value of the property. Defendant presented the testimony of Richard Urban, Edward Wovas, Kevin Metcalf, Andrew Chamberline and Jill Voigt, who testified generally that it was feasible, both logistically and financially, to use the property at issue as an intermodal vehicle distribution facility, or mixing center, where finished automobiles would be delivered from automobile manufacturing plants, loaded onto trains, and then distributed across the United States. Defendant also presented expert testimony regarding the value of the property as an intermodal vehicle distribution facility. Chamberline, a professional real estate appraiser, testified that the value of the entire parcel before the taking was $25 million and that the value of the remaining property after the taking was $8 million; therefore, plaintiff lost $17 million as a result of the taking. Voigt, a business valuation expert with Deloitte & Touche, testified that the property had an overall value of $32 million. On the other hand, plaintiff presented the rebuttal testimony of Dr. John Taylor, who testified that the use of the property as an intermodal vehicle distribution facility was not feasible for a number of reasons, as well as the testimony of appraiser Sharon Harbin, who testified that the highest and best use for the property in question was as "a trucking facility that might do warehousing and . . . store trucks" and valued the property at $1.23 million. According to Harbin, she did not value the property as an intermodal vehicle distribution facility because the property did not have certain qualities that would have permitted its use as such a facility and because there was no evidence that it would be economically feasible. Harbin stated that she was "not going to consider something when it's that far fetched." At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded defendant just compensation damages in the amount of $2 million. The trial court entered a judgment of $2,000,000 in favor of defendant, plus interest, costs and attorney fees. Defendant, dissatisfied with the just compensation award, moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, additur. Defendant argued, in relevant part, that it was entitled to a new trial because juror 19 was a resident of Oakland County, not Wayne County, because the jury's award was against the great weight of the evidence and was based on the speculative and unreliable testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. John Taylor, and because the cumulative effect of errors denied defendant a fair trial. In the alternative, defendant argued that the trial court should grant additur in the amount of $17 million. The trial court ordered the parties to depose juror 19 and otherwise denied defendant's motion for new trial. On December 3, 2007, the deposition of juror 19 was taken. Thereafter, defendant filed a supplemental brief and a second supplemental brief in support of its motion for new trial or additur, arguing again that a new trial was warranted based on juror 19's residence. The trial court denied defendant's motion for new trial based on juror 19's residence, stating on the record: But I find that the motion for a new trial shall be denied. I find that the trial court is entitled to rely on the representations made under oath by the juror in voir dire. She said she lived in Northville. She does live in Northville, I acknowledge that. I find that she lives in Northville and there was never any indication that she did not live in Wayne County. As to the issue of prejudice, clearly there's prejudice in the finding of the jury by way of the verdict result but that's not the kind of prejudice that's talked about. It would be entirely prejudicial to the maintenance of a sane society of -2-

justice for one side or another to profit by the dissembling of a juror who under oath said she lives in Northville. Obviously we assumed it was Wayne County but nobody ever thought to question it nor did I. In a later hearing, the trial court also denied defendant's motion for additur, stating: The request for an additur to seventeen million dollars is denied. Historically the lawyers agreed that a verdict in this case would be six of eight jurors.[3] I ruled that the jury did not find against the great weight of evidence. Additionally, I find that the business enterprise was speculative as a matter of fact due to the lacking of proper permits and/or the ability to interrupt traffic flow on Jefferson at Connor Creek with trains at least one mile in length. There is no basis for me to change the verdict of the jury. . . . The jury did not find against the weight of the evidence that was presented in the case. Therefore, the motion is denied. The judgment awarded interest as provided by MCL 213.65, but did not specify whether interest was simple or compound. In August 2008, defendant filed a motion seeking compound interest on the judgment. According to defendant, compound interest was required by Const 1963, art 10,

Download CITY OF DETROIT V CROWN ENTERPRISES INC.pdf

Michigan Law