Occasionally there are court decisions that seem contrary to common sense. Generally one of the ways that I view the quality of a court decision is if the decision tends to spur additional legal actions.
After the US Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (1), there has been a general movement across the United States to limit eminent domain powers. The backlash that has developed has spilled over well beyond the question of eminent domain.
As a general principle adverse possession, acquiescence, etc., does not operate against a governmental entity. Recently however we have seen some cases coming up across the United States that appear to try and reinterpret this general principle. A Michigan Court of Appeals case, Mason v. City of Menominee (2), is a case where a City park surrounds the plaintiff on three sides. At issue was a 60 foot wide strip on one side of the plaintiff's land that was deeded to the City for a street. A street was never opened on the strip of land in question and the plaintiff apparently had a portion of their driveway there for more than 15 years (the statutory time period for acquiescence in Michigan).
In a published opinion regarding this case the Michigan Court of Appeals stated…
In other words the court was saying that the judgment they have rendered in this case is because of the wording of current State Code and that this wording may need to be revisited by the Legislature if it wishes to avoid unintended consequences stemming from the current State Code language.
Unfortunately since this ruling came down in February in the above case there has been no action on the Legislatures part. As a result of the ruling in the above case multiple lawsuits in Michigan are being filed. These legal actions are being brought by governmental entities who fear that if they do not bring such action they will be subject to legal action themselves.
Here is part of a story (3) that appeared in the Detroit Free Press today….
I certainly agree that public powers regarding private property rights need limits; however when governmental entities feel compelled to file lawsuits in mass against private individuals as a result of a court decision something has clearly gone wrong.
_______________________________________________________
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
(2) http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals ... /41975.pdf
(3) http://www.freep.com/article/20090621/N ... landowners
After the US Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London (1), there has been a general movement across the United States to limit eminent domain powers. The backlash that has developed has spilled over well beyond the question of eminent domain.
As a general principle adverse possession, acquiescence, etc., does not operate against a governmental entity. Recently however we have seen some cases coming up across the United States that appear to try and reinterpret this general principle. A Michigan Court of Appeals case, Mason v. City of Menominee (2), is a case where a City park surrounds the plaintiff on three sides. At issue was a 60 foot wide strip on one side of the plaintiff's land that was deeded to the City for a street. A street was never opened on the strip of land in question and the plaintiff apparently had a portion of their driveway there for more than 15 years (the statutory time period for acquiescence in Michigan).
In a published opinion regarding this case the Michigan Court of Appeals stated…
Notably, subsection (1) states that periods of limitations do not apply in actions for the recovery
of any land "where the state is a party." Given the statute's wording, regardless of whether a
state is the plaintiff or defendant, it does not lose its right to recover possession of its land after a
certain period of time. Subsection (2), on the other hand, applies to actions "brought by" a
municipal corporation. On its face, the plain language of the statute does not apply in situations
where the municipal corporation did not bring the action, which is the present case. While I find
that the statute, as worded, creates a rather illusory protection to municipalities, immunizing
them from periods of limitation only if they file the action for recovery of their land, it is for the
Legislature to fix a statute which is subject to only one, albeit anomalous, interpretation.
In other words the court was saying that the judgment they have rendered in this case is because of the wording of current State Code and that this wording may need to be revisited by the Legislature if it wishes to avoid unintended consequences stemming from the current State Code language.
Unfortunately since this ruling came down in February in the above case there has been no action on the Legislatures part. As a result of the ruling in the above case multiple lawsuits in Michigan are being filed. These legal actions are being brought by governmental entities who fear that if they do not bring such action they will be subject to legal action themselves.
Here is part of a story (3) that appeared in the Detroit Free Press today….
Dwight Watros is being sued -- for mowing.
For a decade, the Orion Township resident has been cutting grass from the back of his home all the way to a rickety, barbed wire fence separating his property from the Paint Creek Trail.
The problem is that a sliver of property at the rear of his backyard is part of the trail.
To protect the public land, the Paint Creek Trailways Commission has filed a lawsuit against 56 landowners neighboring the trail, saying they're encroaching.
The suit, a lawyer for the commission said, is in response to a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in February in favor of an Upper Peninsula couple who sued the City of Menominee to take ownership of public land they'd been using near their home for years.
I certainly agree that public powers regarding private property rights need limits; however when governmental entities feel compelled to file lawsuits in mass against private individuals as a result of a court decision something has clearly gone wrong.
_______________________________________________________
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
(2) http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals ... /41975.pdf
(3) http://www.freep.com/article/20090621/N ... landowners
No comments:
Post a Comment