Now Accepting New Clients!

City of Farmington Hills properly ordered resident to tear down addition that did not comply with zoning ordinances

The defendant-City did not violate the plaintiff's procedural due-process rights when it issued seven valid citations relating to the construction of his home addition because each citation resulted in a hearing in which the plaintiff participated. The issue was not "whether the various decisions regarding the citations and zoning requirements were correct but whether plaintiff was afforded due process in regard to the citations and zoning violations." The trial court ordered the plaintiff to remove the addition because it did not comply with the City's zoning ordinances. The plaintiff sued the City under several theories. The trial court rejected his due-process claim, and declined to apply Pittsfield Twp. to find "exceptional circumstances" that would "equitably estop" the City from enforcing the zoning restrictions. The plaintiff "submitted a set of plans that were approved, and then proceeded to build a structure that did not match his plans. The plans submitted with the permit also failed to accurately depict the property lines. As soon as the discrepancy was discovered, defendant issued a stop work order; however, plaintiff continued to work on the project." He also "failed to comply with the applicable building codes." His claims under the MZA were not fully developed, and he was not entitled to relief on his Penn Central takings claim because he did not show that the zoning ordinance was "not equally applicable to all similarly situated property owners, nor did he produce evidence demonstrating that he was unaware of the zoning ordinance or could not have reasonably known of the ordinance at the time he purchased his property." Further, it was clear that the zoning ordinance allowed plaintiff "to make valuable use of his land." There was no evidence to support a de facto "taking," and his claim for a violation of the Open Meetings Act was not addressed because he did not raise it in the lower court. His substantive due-process claim was unsuccessful because none of the City's actions, including seeking an order requiring the addition be removed, were "'so arbitrary and capricious as to shock the conscience.'" The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.

Construction contract arbitration award upheld

In this construction contract case, the trial court did not err by denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award and, thus, did not err by granting the defendants-lien claimants and defendant-contractor (Bosco) summary...

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000