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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[Meddle]

Just take the property from the Maroons.

Take all of their property for all I care.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[EastsideAl]

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

I think the standard is consistent use, and is not fully dependent on ownership. I own property in Ontario that has adverse easements [[as they are termed there) which have passed from owner to owner to owner. The seller just have to give notice to the buyer that they are passing on a possible adverse situation. Ontario and Michigan property laws differ, obviously, but have their roots in the same common law doctrines. I believe that the area in question has been used for parking and other uses for that restaurant since it was built in the '60s.

[jcole]

It sounds like no one did a title search on the last purchase and possibly the one before. If the property was listed and sold by a third party, they are going to need to see if there was either a title search or a deed with property description or if they just did the lazy thing and took the owner at their word.

I think the standard is consistent use, and is not fully dependent on ownership. I own property in Ontario that has adverse easements [[as they are termed there) which have passed from owner to owner to owner. The seller just have to give notice to the buyer that they are passing on a possible adverse situation. Ontario and Michigan property laws differ, obviously, but have their roots in the same common law doctrines. I believe that the area in question has been used for parking and other uses for that restaurant since it was built in the '60s.

[Richard]

It sounds like no one did a title search on the last purchase and possibly the one before. If the property was listed and sold by a third party, they are going to need to see if there was either a title search or a deed with property description or if they just did the lazy thing and took the owner at their word.

To me it looks like the previous owner sold and held financing while allowing them to retain the name.

The article really lacks any investigative reporting,just a David verses Goliath hit job.

I do not have the paid excess to the Wane county property records,which seems to be the only one in the country that actually charges for public records.

But that would provide most of the information needed.

We do not know,there could be also things going on at levels not in our view ,I can imagine if it was sold in 2010 it was sold cheap,and if it was sold owner financing and payments are behind and the property value has increased…….

Or the current owners are using this as a out from the purchase.

Or as simple as it is listed,the lot owner maybe in the process of an accesment of all of the properties they own and are starting to cross the Ts and dot the I’s and wanted to resolve this once and for all.


If it was bank financed they would have required a title search and most likely would not have touched it with a adverse possession situation that was unresolved,because it would directly impact a business.

I went through this in Detroit a few years back,an apartment building,all the pictures and listings showed ample parking in the back.

When I did the research the lot in the back was owned by somebody else,the only entrance was down the side of the apartment building.

The seller said do not worry everybody has been parking there for years.

It happens until it does not,if I had bought that then the lot owner would have had me over the ropes and I would have had to pay whatever they wanted for it out of no choice.

All the city would have had to say was,you need off-street parking,then you are screwed.

Judging from adverse possession cases that have already been through the courts,it’s not that simple,most of the adverse possession relates to abandonment of existing houses,it is kinda hard to claim adverse possession on a vacant lot in a commercial setting.

Because if the lot owner has been paying taxes on it,they have not abandoned it.

But stranger things have happened in the court process,this will be interesting to see play out.

There had to be a discussion between the lot owner and the business,he put the fence up because they did not come to a resolution.

In the bigger picture it could actually be a sign of change,something had to set this off,not just some little insignificant lot when compared to the portfolio as a whole.

Its like 3 or 4 different sides to this story,or mess.

But I have done lousy business decisions that wasted a lot of time and money,and meet others that make the same dumb mistakes all the time,it was not until I learned to apply risk assessment because sometimes when we get excited about going into a business,we overlook things that at the moment may seem irrelevant, but can come back and bite you really hard.

I kinda see that happening here and hope it works out best for everybody concerned.

[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.

[Wesley Mouch]

Quick DuckDuckGo-ing..... found that adverse possession requires this ...

1. hostile [[against the right of the true owner and without permission)
2. actual [[exercising control over the property)
3. exclusive [[in the possession of the trespasser alone)
4. open and notorious [[using the property as the real owner would, without hiding his or her occupancy), and
5. continuous for the statutory period [[which is 15 years in Michigan under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5801[[4)).