Mouron's pick parking lot dispute with Green Dot Stables

[Zads07]

The Mouron's are in the news for yet again, something so petty and greedy.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/bil...source=twitter

"There is a property problem for a popular burger joint in Detroit. The company that owns the land next door to Green Dot Stables is laying down the line, in the form of a fence right through the middle of the restaurant's parking lot."

[Honky Tonk]

Not being a Maroun fan by any stretch of the imagination, DIBC does have a point. Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands. I wonder if Green Dot, which I frequent and like, can claim imminent domain or something to that effect, for taking care of the property, [upkeep, snow removal, etc.] all these years? The parking around Green Dot goes into overflow at times.

[Zads07]

Not being a Maroun fan by any stretch of the imagination, DIBC does have a point. Someone coming out of Green Dot, inebriated, trips and falls on their property, which is unsecured, they have a lawsuit on their hands. I wonder if Green Dot, which I frequent and like, can claim imminent domain or something to that effect, for taking care of the property, [upkeep, snow removal, etc.] all these years? The parking around Green Dot goes into overflow at times.

Yea it's a point, a small one, but still a point. I think it's a complete farce of a point because the courts clearly sided with Green Dot with the overnight fence.

With restaurants going back as far as they have been on that property, my best is the courts side with Green Dot because of 1. imminent domain because of how long a restaurant has been on that property and 2. where are these property lines from, the DIBC or the city? My bet is they are two different maps.

[Honky Tonk]

Yea it's a point, a small one, but still a point. I think it's a complete farce of a point because the courts clearly sided with Green Dot with the overnight fence.

The court provided a temporary solution to let Green Dot keep their doors open. I don't know if I'd quite call it "sided". Maps, property lines, right of ownership, surveying, all that has to be hashed out in court, and a permanent ruling made. DIBC has billions to do this and I don't think Green Dot has the means. Remember DIBCs bridge battles? I question why now? Maybe DIBC wants to get into the restaurant business. I like their Mystery Meat sliders.

[Zads07]

The court provided a temporary solution to let Green Dot keep their doors open. I don't know if I'd quite call it "sided". Maps, property lines, right of ownership, surveying, all that has to be hashed out in court, and a permanent ruling made. DIBC has billions to do this and I don't think Green Dot has the means. Remember DIBCs bridge battles? I question why now? Maybe DIBC wants to get into the restaurant business. I like their Mystery Meat sliders.

Yes a temporary solution, but still a good start for them.

I always question their motives. Exactly the question I'm asking, why now? How did they come across this property line after 50 years of not knowing? DIBC will definitely fight this as far and as long as possible, because they have the money. Green Dot, unfortunately does not.

[Honky Tonk]

Yes a temporary solution, but still a good start for them.

I always question their motives. Exactly the question I'm asking, why now? How did they come across this property line after 50 years of not knowing? DIBC will definitely fight this as far and as long as possible, because they have the money. Green Dot, unfortunately does not.

I wish Green Dot the best of luck. I'd hate to see anything happen to the restaurant. Maybe the City has a parcel of land nearby they can let them have cheap to develop for parking. I'm going to support them by buying a plate of sliders.

[JonWylie]

Green Dot has a pretty strong argument for adverse possession, since DIBC hasn't touched that piece of land it what sounds like decades, and Green Dot has made improvements to it.

[jiminnm]

Green Dot has a pretty strong argument for adverse possession, since DIBC hasn't touched that piece of land it what sounds like decades, and Green Dot has made improvements to it.

Adverse possession in Michigan requires 15 years of use, with other conditions.

[EastsideAl]

Adverse possession in Michigan requires 15 years of use, with other conditions.

Green Dot in its various incarnations, and their parking lot, have been there far longer than that. I remember going to Green Dot in the '70s, back when it was mostly a businessmen's lunch and cocktails place for execs, sales reps, etc. from the nearby industrial/office park.

[Danny]

All about Maroun's land grab. They do not own half of Green Dot Stables. The land belongs to them.

[Wesley Mouch]

Green Dot has a pretty strong argument for adverse possession, since DIBC hasn't touched that piece of land it what sounds like decades, and Green Dot has made improvements to it.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jimaz]

That must suck to accumulate so much property that one can't keep up with its management. My sympathy can be seen with a microscope.

[Richard]

I agree on the liability aspect,if somebody tripped and fell or shot and a low lighting claim was made? I doubt lawyers for the other business would step up and say,do not worry we will pay this multi million dollar claim because we were using the lot.

50 years ago people were not out looking for people to sue on a daily basis,then there are also ADA requirements etc.

Why not just come to terms with the lot and buy it,it would be no different if on the odd chance somebody wanted to develop it,if no adverse possession claim has not been filed,in how many years? It is irrelevant at this time.

The owner of the lot can sell it to a straw buyer,who marks out the property line and it becomes case closed.

Like the article reads,the fence was used as a nudge in order to come to a resolution outside of saying,we have been using it for free all this time,why should we have to pay for it now.

Now it has been pushed to the point of no return,if the court decides for the legal property owner,they screwed themselves and will be left with zero choices.

Of course it does leave them an out if they wish to close,they can always say it was the bad guy next doors fault and the public would agree.

in the form of a fence -- right through the middle of the restaurant's parking lot.

It was not their lot though,they just kinda took it,did they have a lease in it?

The lot owner is listed as a culprit,I do not know,seems like they were nice enough to allow its use all these years.

Just goes to show you have to not be nice to people in business,because if you give them an inch they expect a mile at your expense.

Who ever owns the restaurant had to know the limitations when they bought it,personally I would never purchase a property without defined property lines and most certainly would not buy one where there is a lot next door that could control my business,if I did not have possession of it legally first.

We now live in a world where you are considered a culprit ,if you buy a piece of property and do not allow everybody else to do what they wish with it.

I like that P building,you guys can buy it for me,I will fix it and then it becomes mine.

Or just buy it and let me use it.

You are probably going to see more cases like this as property values go up and people decide to make decisions about the future of vacant parcels.

[Honky Tonk]

Who ever owns the restaurant had to know the limitations when they bought it,personally I would never purchase a property without defined property lines and most certainly would not buy one where there is a lot next door that could control my business,if I did not have possession of it legally first.

Though I agree with you on this point having gone through it with a few friends ["you cut my trees down!" "No,those were on property!"] Green Dot, before it's current style, has been a high end restaurant for decades. That parking lot has always been there.

[Richard]

Though I agree with you on this point having gone through it with a few friends ["you cut my trees down!" "No,those were on property!"] Green Dot, before it's current style, has been a high end restaurant for decades. That parking lot has always been there.

As dirt cheap as property has been in Detroit for the last 20 years if not longer,it probably would have been prudent fir the restaurant to buy that parcel years ago.

But they did not most likely based on their existing property had little value and they had use of it so why buy it.

We are not really getting the whole story though,outside of evil man verses nice guy or gal or whatever they identify as,the other restaurant may have had a lease agreement for the lot those years.

Nobody buys a property without clearly defined lines,even more so with commercial because you never know when it can change hands at any given time,let alone get it financed.

Because it is now in litigation we will not know the whole story.

I live in Florida,you would be surprised to see how many from up north are buying property online that have no egress or easements,and because they are told one is there and has been for years and do zero due diligence and find out they are stuck with a dead property and no helicopter to excess it.

In another state there are some city folk that bought a farm,the only entrance was through a neighbors property,they demanded the city maintain 50 foot of it,city said hey,not on our property not our responsibility.

They pissed the neighbor off and he shut the road down,now they are stuck with no way to get to their property.

Here the article is more based on the evil man campaign.

Everything is always as it was,until it is not.

[401don]

Sometimes I'm amazed what makes the news in Detroit. A parking dispute between a restaurant and the guy next door? Pretty small town stuff. I just don't see this type of thing in other large cities and every media outlet in town picked it up.

[Gistok]

Sometimes I'm amazed what makes the news in Detroit. A parking dispute between a restaurant and the guy next door? I just don't see this type of thing in other large cities and every media outlet in town picked it up.

Anything involving the city's 3 billionaire landowners [Maroun, Ilitch, Gilbert] is newsworthy according to the city's media...

[Meddle]

Just take the property from the Maroons.

Take all of their property for all I care.

[Richard]

Just take the property from the Maroons.

Take all of their property for all I care.

Sure,but then it opens the door to do the same with yours,if you own any.

[Richard]

If I am reading it right

The current owner had to been in possession of his property for 15 years or if when they purchased it and had it less then 15 years,they would have had to have something in writing from the seller stating that it was In adverse possession,in order to make it a consistent 15 years,without restarting the clock.

If there was any kind of lease agreements on the lot in the past they will not count towards the 15 years,adverse possession is considered taking possession by force.

That looks like it will be the only way they can claim adverse possession,outside of that it is just basic trespassing.

[jcole]

Green Dots website says they opened in 2010...actually bought in 2010, opened in 2012. Prior to that it was called Green Dot but had totally different owners, so I would guess that Adverse Possession doesn't apply to these owners