City of Holland v. Manish Enterprises
| Decision Date | 15 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 101423 |
| Citation | 436 N.W.2d 398,174 Mich.App. 509 |
| Parties | CITY OF HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANISH ENTERPRISES, Charles L. Fisher and Francis W. Mangine, Defendants-Appellants, and Old Kent Bank of Holland, Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Cunningham, Mulder & Breese, P.C. by Kenneth B. Breese, Holland, for plaintiff-appellee.
Persinger & Farmer, P.C. by Richard D. Persinger, Holland, for defendants-appellants.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and McDONALD and ROBINSON, * JJ.
Manish Enterprises, the owner of certain real property located in the City of Holland, appeals as of right from a circuit court order enjoining it from using the residential building on the subject property for multifamily housing in violation of the city's zoning code. The property is located in an A-3 zone. Although multifamily dwellings are allowed in an A-3 zone, such use is restricted to lots with at least sixty feet of frontage. The Manish property has only forty-eight feet three inches of frontage.
Although the property had apparently been used for multifamily occupancy since 1974, the city zoning board became aware of the violation in January, 1986, after it embarked on a city-wide inspection program for rental properties. The city brought suit against Manish seeking an injunction to prohibit the continuing zoning violation, as a nuisance per se. See M.C.L. Sec. 125.587; M.S.A. Sec. 5.2937. Manish admitted most of the city's allegations, but raised the equitable doctrines of estoppel and laches as affirmative defenses to the action.
After a bench trial, the circuit court issued an injunction preventing the continued use of the subject property as a multifamily dwelling and providing for future inspections to ensure enforcement.
On appeal, Manish asserts that the trial court erred when it ruled that Manish had failed to establish its affirmative defenses. Manish also asserts that the circuit court failed to appropriately balance the equities in this case when it issued the injunction.
This Court reviews a trial court's decision in an equity action de novo. After examining the entire record and the evidence presented, the trial court's findings will be upheld unless this Court is convinced it would have reached a different result had it been sitting as the trial court. McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Mich.App. 321, 325, 418 N.W.2d 716 (1987); Calvary Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Lake Huron of the United Presbyterian Church, 148 Mich.App. 105, 109-110, 384 N.W.2d 92 (1986), lv. den. 425 Mich. 863 (1986).
Manish contended below that the city had actual or constructive notice through city utility records concerning the ongoing violation of the zoning ordinance for so long that it should be barred from seeking an injunction by the equitable doctrine of laches.
Laches is an affirmative defense which does not depend on the mere passage of a specific period of time, but primarily upon intervening circumstances which render inequitable granting any relief to the dilatory plaintiff. In re Crawford Estate, 115 Mich.App. 19, 25, 320 N.W.2d 276 (1982). Before the defense of laches may be successfully asserted, the one claiming laches must show some prejudice resulting from the other party's lack of due diligence. Id. Whether a party is guilty of laches is determined on a case by case basis through examining the facts and circumstances. In re Dissolution of F Yeager Bridge & Culvert Co., 150 Mich.App. 386, 397, 389 N.W.2d 99 (1986); Rofe v. Robinson (on Second Remand), 126 Mich.App. 151, 154, 336 N.W.2d 778 (1983).
In the instant case, Manish introduced evidence that the property had been used for a multifamily dwelling since 1974, when David Kiekentveld purchased the property from a Jerry Wolters. This was after the zoning board had rejected Wolters' petition to convert the property to a multifamily residence in 1972. The Kiekentvelds had used the property for the same purpose until the sale to Manish in 1981.
The house was designated a "rooming house" with the Holland Department of Environmental Health, an approved use for the property in an A-3 zone. The city assessor's office recorded four mail boxes at the address in 1981, which might have indicated multifamily use. The city assessor's office also had received from the local board of realtors in 1974 a listing card which indicated multifamily use. Further, the Board of Public Works had records showing plumbing and utility bills for the premises consistent with apartment use.
Manish vigorously argues here, as below, that the aforementioned evidence proved the existence of sufficient notice to the city of a violation of the zoning ordinance, relying on City of Hancock v. Hueter, 118 Mich.App. 811, 325 N.W.2d 591 (1982). The trial court distinguished the instant case from Hancock by noting that in Hancock there were two admissions of sufficient notice to the city: the city manager testified that the garbage billing based on three apartments being present constituted notice to the city, and the city manager stated that he was informed of the violation of the zoning ordinance in 1972. The city's complaint was not filed until August, 1980. In the present case, no notice to the city was admitted.
We believe it unnecessary to decide the adequacy of notice to the city. We note that mere passage of time does not, alone, support the defense of laches. Manish failed to persuade...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badon v. General Motors Corp.
...time combined with intervening circumstances render it inequitable to grant relief to the plaintiff. City of Holland v. Manish Enterprises, 174 Mich.App. 509, 512, 436 N.W.2d 398 (1988). The defendant must prove a lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff resulting in some prejudic......