Mouron's pick parking lot dispute with Green Dot Stables

[Baselinepunk]

"Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands."

Then plaintiff has no lawsuit if they cause the accident. If they were not drunk, well then they have to look out for obvious dangers. You should watch Judge Judy every so often, you might learn something ...

[Richard]

Jon, thanks for clarifying that its not eminent domain, but adverse possession.

Hope a lawyer here can clarify this. I thought it was 7 years of possession without an assertion of ownership by the owner of record. But maybe different now or than I thought.

And I'll pile onto the 'sided' discussion too. Courts do not 'side' with anyone. Courts decide the application of law. I assume the courts 'decision' on this is only that they don't know enough yet to stop DIBC from asserting their claim, so they've said its legal for DIBC to be making the claim until proven otherwise. A ruling of the law as regards 'adverse possession' requires more legal proof.

The word “exclusive” comes into play,if they had fenced it off it would be one thing.

If the public could also park their car there without going into the adjoining business,or you could park your car there for days without the adjoining business having it towed,then it would not be considered exclusive.

They had use of it,but not exclusive use of it.

Otherwise a regular that parked there every day for 15 years could also claim adverse possession.

They would not have been able legally to have your vehicle towed from that lot because only the registered property owner can authorize it by law with a signed contract.

So they were not in full sole adverse possession of a property that had defined borders,I would think that it would be hard to take possession of something that the public has excess to because you do not have exclusive use.

It was a legal maneuver for the lot owner to put the fence up,even if they had to take it down,because it stops the clock on the 15 year timeline.

One has to figure it’s not the lot owners first rodeo.

[Honky Tonk]

"Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands."

Then plaintiff has no lawsuit if they cause the accident. If they were not drunk, well then they have to look out for obvious dangers. You should watch Judge Judy every so often, you might learn something ...

Here you go punk, I assume you can read. There might also be videos you can watch instead.

"Can you sue for slip and fall in Michigan?
There is no limit to the amount of compensation that you can demand in a Michigan slip and fall lawsuit. Unlike other personal injury cases, there are no damage limits imposed by law. This allows victims to request full and fair compensation for their injuries without any caps on damages."

[Richard]

"Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands."

Then plaintiff has no lawsuit if they cause the accident. If they were not drunk, well then they have to look out for obvious dangers. You should watch Judge Judy every so often, you might learn something ...

It’s totally irrelevant weather you as a business can win against a claim,it still costs time and money to defend yourself and most of the time you cannot collect against the person suing because they have nothing to take.

Frivolous claims are filed every day with the only intention of a quick settlement outside of court.

[DetroitGuy423]

The word “exclusive” comes into play,if they had fenced it off it would be one thing.

If the public could also park their car there without going into the adjoining business,or you could park your car there for days without the adjoining business having it towed,then it would not be considered exclusive.

They had use of it,but not exclusive use of it.

Otherwise a regular that parked there every day for 15 years could also claim adverse possession.

They would not have been able legally to have your vehicle towed from that lot because only the registered property owner can authorize it by law with a signed contract.

So they were not in full sole adverse possession of a property that had defined borders,I would think that it would be hard to take possession of something that the public has excess to because you do not have exclusive use.

It was a legal maneuver for the lot owner to put the fence up,even if they had to take it down,because it stops the clock on the 15 year timeline.

One has to figure it’s not the lot owners first rodeo.

Exclusive use means not shared with the owner on title. For example, if Morouns had come and go from it from time to time with Green Dot's knowledge/permission, then there is no exclusivity. Here, Green Dot used it and held out to the public that it was Green Dot's parking lot, etc. I think they have a pretty good case for adverse possession which is why the Judge ordered the fence removed.

[ABetterDetroit]

It is ironic how one Billionaire in Detroit is doing everything possible to encourage businesses and residents close to his property to thrive and prosper for the betterment of the community as a whole and to improve the values of his own property while two other Billionaires are actively attempting to blight and diminish property values in the city just so they can acquire more property cheaper.

Sometimes it seems like Detroit just has bad luck.

[Richard]

It is ironic how one Billionaire in Detroit is doing everything possible to encourage businesses and residents close to his property to thrive and prosper for the betterment of the community as a whole and to improve the values of his own property while two other Billionaires are actively attempting to blight and diminish property values in the city just so they can acquire more property cheaper.

Sometimes it seems like Detroit just has bad luck.

Not bad luck - interesting concept of how businesses should operate and what their role should be.

With the public it is personal,with business it is just that.

Two provided examples of different business models that have different approach’s but the same goals.

Two completely different levels of funding,one may have excess to 1 billion while the other has excess to 10 billion.

The taxpayers also gave one company $250 million in order to buy the low hanging fruit at the time,so you gave for free a bunch of buildings to one business while the other spent years buying theirs.

Detroit does not have exclusivity on how local billionaires operate and it is not bad luck.

The amount of times people say,he’s a billionaire he can afford to do what ever he wants.

As a billionaire they do not have a billion dollars sitting there in cash,it is net worth based on the value of combined assets.

The bridge company has a bridge,trucking companies across the country,distribution centers or hubs,real estate holdings etc.

The billionaire status is obtained by combining the value of all of those,it dies not account for the overhead it takes to operate it all.

He is a billionaire on paper,not in paper.

With the lot owner,have you been able to find any properties that they own and owe taxes on?

Vacant or not they have always seemed to keep their property taxes paid up,unlike many others,even in the cities darkest days.

Using MTS as an example,nobody could have bought that as a stand alone building,dumped millions into it and just said here we are.

Detroit is unique because of its size,for a majority of the buildings and considering the size and trashed condition of a lot of them,you cannot just take a singular building and rehabilitate it as a stand alone project.

On a smaller scale it would be like you buying a house on a block where every other house on the block is derelict,are you really going to put 50,000 into fixing it when it will have little value after you are done and nobody will even buy it afterwards?

Its like what Mr. Gilbert and Ford are doing,you cannot just buy a building as a stand alone project,you have to have a plan for the surrounding area that it incorporates into the bigger picture in order to have any value in the end.

That takes deep pockets,people can be asset rich but cash poor.

The bridge company may have a different business model then the others,it may not be a buy and build model short term,but at the very least they kept a property tax cash flow going into the city coffers when it needed it the most.

Considering the amount of properties in the city that were and still are behind on the taxes,I would not consider that bad luck,more so fortunate that it was not that many more properties draining the city coffers.

In this case they have been paying the property taxes on a vacant lot that they own,while somebody else has been using it for free all of this time,and now they say,thanks now just give me the lot for free because we deserve it because we have been using it.

I can think of lots of things to call that senário,none of which would include bad luck.

They did say they offered $300 a month with a 10 year lease,why would they do that if they thought they were owed it for free?

The counter offer was higher and a month to month lease,which is standard if you are a property owner chooses not to tie a property up.

That would mean the the property would be locked down fir the next 10 years with no hope for any development.

They also said that the lot owner was pissed off because they wanted to buy the restaurant property and make that lot one big parcel for development which makes the most sense.

But they out bid the lot owner and paid more then it was worth knowing full well the parking situation did not include the lot.

But they are also saying they are not worried about it because there is plenty of street parking,so why all the drama over the vacant lot,that they do not need in the first place by their own admission.

Because they are trying to do the same thing the lot owner is trying to do,complile the entire corner into one big parcel for re-sale value .

But they are smarter then the lot owner,they are trying to get the rest of the parcel for free.

By using the court of public opinion to gain support,but like it was mentioned,the court’s decision will be based in the law and not the concept of free is for me.

If you look at the long term business model of the bridge company it has always been about compiling multiple lots over long periods of time in order to have large build able parcels.

The city is constantly saying it cannot draw employment investments because there are not enough large parcels for those employment centers to build on.

The bridge company is in the transportation business,everything they acquire is based or near locations for transportation hubs or warehousing,they are not in the general development business.

They may be considered the devil now but as the city moves forward,everything you buy has to be transported and stored somewhere before you receive it and that is what they are investing in long term.

They are not going to buying office towers and such like Mr Gilbert and it is not a requirement to rebuild the city in order to move forward,they are another necessary cog in the wheel.

You really cannot expect of or damn them for not going outside of their business model.

The lot in question here surrounds the restaurant on three sides,compiled as one large parcel,it would have more investment value then the restaurant building.

It has nothing to do with actual parking,it’s about adding value to the dirt with a added bonus if you can get the rest for free.

[Scottathew]

Assuming what DIBC says is true, I agree with them. If it's their property they get to choose what they do with it.

However, I don't trust DIBC. They have a track record of not always telling the truth and they DO NOT have the best interests of anyone but themselves in mind.

[Richard]

^ how are we any different,nobody goes to work then gives all of their salary to the cause.

These other businesses jumping on the social justice bandwagon lose nothing,they can say they are donating millions but after the tax write off the extra 50c they add to each order in order to make up for it and taking into account the millions in free publicity that receive,it has cost them nothing.

Business 101 - the sole purpose of a corporation is to make money for their share holders.

Just like people go to work to make money.

The biggest misconception is saying,you are in business making money,you can afford it,when the truth of the matter is most small business owners make less then they could in the corporate world while working twice the hours with twice the headaches.

For me it was relieving the stress of morning traffic and people bitching if I was 5 minutes late,but in business the buck stops with you,fail or succeed there is nobody else to blame,and you are in control of your destiny.

We do not really know how much the bridge owner donates to causes every year,they are because they make enough to reap the tax reductions,but most will donate while not expecting anything in return,even more so publicy because it is view as humble bragging.

You do not go into business to make friends and it is like real life,if you play the nice guy people take that as a sign of weakness and try and screw you.

Unless you are a clown or open a weed store,not many go into business in order to make others happy.

I understand where you are coming from and I also feel the same way,it has come at a price compared to competitors,to the tune of over $400,000 a year,that’s a lot of money fir a small business guy.

I try and justify it by saying I did the right thing but the thing that stays consistent,all of those who I helped get into business at my lose?

After they get going you never hear from them again,with a majority not even a simple thank you,it was like I owed them something,I blame it on my raising to treat everybody fair but it appears not to apply in business.

Like in this case,they knew they did not own that property,it does not matter if the bridge company owned it or not,the restaurant knew the property taxes were being paid by somebody else and they enjoyed and possibly profited off of the use of that property.

The right thing would be to say,it was a nice ride and it’s over,thanks for the use.

The bridge company knew the lot was being used by the restaurant and they continued to pay the taxes so it cost them by playing nice,and now in attorney fees to claim what they actually own already.

Take the DIBC name out if the picture and put your name as the owner of the lot.

The lesson you would have learned was,from the start,fence the lot in while denying excess to it because by playing the nice guy just got you potentially screwed out if your lot.

If you were depending on that lots increased value over time as a small investor to pay your child’s college or supplement you retirement,you would be phucked,because that is now a 15 to 20,000 attorney bill to protect your investment.

To me it is just wrong to expect somebody to just hand over a piece of property because I had free use of it.

But then in this case it’s business and there should be no feelings involved because it is all about collecting the money.

The restaurant owner is doing the exact same thing others accuse the DIBC of doing,okay you can call it karma,but is it justified being the same as those who you appose.

Clearly the restaurant owner picked a game to play with somebody that is miles out of their league and is banking on DIBC drawing a line of where it no longer profitable to fight for their property,but everybody else knows that company has a history of paying what it takes to protect their interests no matter what.

They have to otherwise word gets out that they are a pushover and everybody will be standing in line to push them over,pick your battles in life as they say.

[Burnsie]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...te/8275515002/

Judge orders parties to talk to each other, fence will stay down until at least Thursday

[Wheels]

"Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands."


Then plaintiff has no lawsuit if they cause the accident. If they were not drunk, well then they have to look out for obvious dangers. You should watch Judge Judy every so often, you might learn something ...

Judge Judy? Really? Nothing that close minded old hag spits out would hold up in a real court!

[Honky Tonk]

Judge Judy? Really? Nothing that close minded old hag spits out would hold up in a real court!

I can understand punk's fascination with her...

[Wesley Mouch]

The word “exclusive” comes into play,if they had fenced it off it would be one thing.

If the public could also park their car there without going into the adjoining business,or you could park your car there for days without the adjoining business having it towed,then it would not be considered exclusive.

They had use of it,but not exclusive use of it.

...snip...

Exclusive may be the hardest test here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Yet I think your argument is too strong. Rather than requiring a car to stay parked for 15 years, I would its more important who laid the concrete [[or whatever) to make it a parking lot. If it was more than 15 years ago that the lot was paved, and lines were laid making it a 'thing' rather than an 'idea', that would be sufficient.

MarounCo's fence is of course the right move for them. It clearly breaks the 'exclusive use' claims.

On a related comment... I don't think S&F lawsuits were as issue here. Maroun would carry liability insurance [[as you should too). To the contrary, a serious claim might actually put MarounCo on the other side, arguing that they didn't own the lot.

[Richard]

Exclusive may be the hardest test here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Yet I think your argument is too strong. Rather than requiring a car to stay parked for 15 years, I would its more important who laid the concrete [[or whatever) to make it a parking lot. If it was more than 15 years ago that the lot was paved, and lines were laid making it a 'thing' rather than an 'idea', that would be sufficient.

MarounCo's fence is of course the right move for them. It clearly breaks the 'exclusive use' claims.

On a related comment... I don't think S&F lawsuits were as issue here. Maroun would carry liability insurance [[as you should too). To the contrary, a serious claim might actually put MarounCo on the other side, arguing that they didn't own the lot.

The other popular definition, the "Connecticut rule," defines hostile simply as occupation of the land.[[4) The trespasser doesn't have to know that the land belongs to someone else. The Connecticut rule, kinder to the innocent trespasser, is followed by most states today.[[5)Example: Jesse isn't sure where his property line is, but he thinks an old fence marks the boundary. When he builds his new garage, he builds up to the fence line, which is actually ten feet over on his neighbor's property. Under the Connecticut rule, Jesse's intention doesn't matter, and his occupation is hostile even though he thinks he is on his own land.
A few states follow a third rule, which is directly opposite the Maine rule of requiring intentional trespass. The trespasser must be completely innocent and must have made a good faith mistake, such as relying on an invalid or incorrect deed.

For example, in Iowa, which follows this good faith rule, a woman attempted to claim a strip of her neighbor's land by adverse possession. The court denied her claim because she knew it was not her property, even though she had treated the property as her own for thirty years.[[6)


Michigan follows the good faith rule.

But then the restaurant agreed to enter into a lease agreement if they could come to terms.

One would think by that action they are recognizing that they are not the true owners of the property,if they thought they were entitled to it by adverse possession,there would have no need to come to terms.

They just did not agree with the terms,then they filed the adverse possession claim,after they recognized they did not have legal right to it as it stands.

They did say in their lease proposal that they would assume all liabilities if a claim were to arise,which was rejected by the bridge company.

Understandable because the first thing a lawyer is going to do is go after deep pockets and everybody that is in the chain of title.

Which is becomes irrelevant whether they win or not,the lot owner still has to spend time and money defending themselves,why look for unnecessary headaches.

Usually one would go by case study,but who knows anymore.

I am not sure if the judge said work it out based on trying to send a message to the restaurant owner or the lot owner.

If the lot owner was not interested in future development they would not have stipulated in the proposed lease terms of a month to month lease,anything outside of that locks the property down for resale.

I do not know what the property taxes are for that lot is but the lease offer of $3500 a year hardly seems like it would cover it,if that is the case I would be looking for vacant lots in Detroit to rent and make them into short term paid parking,considering the average parking lot lease is $2000 per month.

They are both doing the exact same thing in trying to lock that corner down for future value.

[Meddle]

Yo, Admin ... Can you put Trickey Dicky on a 100 word per post quota?

[Gistok]

yo, admin ... Can you put trickey dicky on a 100 word per post quota?

lmao....

[Richard]

Yo, Admin ... Can you put Trickey Dicky on a 100 word per post quota?

or those who say things without saying anything and expect a trophy in return.

Nobody is forcing you to actually read anything.

The majority of your posts are whining about what others post and wanting to play admin,my guess you think the world was put here for your benefit?

[Richard]

Under the agreement, Melvin Butch Hollowell, the bridge company's lawyer, said the restaurant will buy the piece of land at the center of the dispute for $90,000 and the company will provide the restaurant with the deed to the land. There is a non-disparagement clause in the deal as well.
It also calls for the bridge company to have the first right of refusal should the restaurant decide to sell the property in the future.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...box=1631901048

[Satiricalivory]

Yo, Admin ... Can you put Trickey Dicky on a 100 word per post quota?

Seriously, doesn't that count as spam? Nobody wants to see this word vomit.