In re Widening of Mich. Ave. from 14TH Ave. to Vinewood Ave.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1941
• Docket Number: No. 50.,50.
• Citation: 300 N.W. 877,299 Mich. 544
• Parties: In re WIDENING OF MICHIGAN AVE. FROM 14TH AVE. TO VINEWOOD AVE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

299 Mich. 544

300 N.W. 877

In re WIDENING OF MICHIGAN AVE. FROM 14TH AVE. TO VINEWOOD AVE.

No. 50.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1941.

Proceeding in the matter of the Widening of Michigan Avenue, where from 14th Avenue to Vinewood Avenue, where not already widened, as a public street and highway. From a jury award of damages for certain property taken by the City of Detroit, an appeal was taken.

Award Affirmed.Appeal from Recorders Court of Detroit; John V. Brennan, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Joseph S. McDowell, of Detroit, for appellants.

Clarence E. Page, of Detroit, for petitioner.

STARR, Justice.

This is an appeal from a jury award of damages for certain property taken by the city of Detroit in condemnation proceedings for the widening of Michigan avenue.

The proceedings were begun October 31, 1939. A jury was impaneled May 17, 1940, and returned verdict September 16, 1940.

Many parcels of property were involved in the proceedings, including the property of appellants located at the northwest corner of Michigan and Maybury Grand avenues. This property is a peculiar wedgeshaped parcel having a frontage of approximately 52.6 feet on Michigan avenue, 100 feet depth on the west line, 111.89 feet depth on the east line along Maybury Grand avenue, and only 2.6 feet width at the rear line. In the condemnation proceedings the city takes that part of the property fronting on Michigan avenue and extending back 54 feet on the west line and 60.42 feet on the east line and having a rear line width of 25.6 feet. There would remain a wedge-shaped parcel with a Michigan avenue frontage of 25.6 feet, a depth of 46 feet on the west line, and 51.47 feet on the east line, and a rear line width of 2.6 feet.

The city called only one witness, who testified in part as follows:

‘There is a two-story brick structure covering the frontage on Michigan avenue. That building extends for a distance of about 83 feet to almost a point. There is a porch that extends the full depth of the main part of the building. The ground floor has a frontage on Michigan avenue and in subdivided. There is a grocery store on the extreme corner. There was a pool room occupying the other part of it, but it is now vacant. There are two flats on the second floor. That building was built in 1886. It has a basement. There is an old brick hot air furnace, which is not in use. It is absolutely worthless in my judgment, after investigation. The building is in bad shape. The flats are occupied. Colored folks are occupying one of the flats and the other is vacant, but they have just rented it, I believe. There is a rear part of that building in very bad shape. Some rooms back there are not used. There is an entrance off the Maybury Grand side.

‘Q. What is your opinion as to the fair market value of the land and buildings referred to as Parcel No. 40? A. $6,500.

‘Q. Now, there will be a remainder of approximately 25 feet of frontage going to a point at the alley, and what in your judgment is the fair market value of that remainder? A. $650.

‘Q. Giving a damage to the owners of that parcel of how much? A. $5,850.’

A witness for appellants testified regarding damage to the building as follows:

‘From my examination of this building I find that the reconstruction cost would be $20,678.50; that, in my judgment, is what it would take to replace this building in its present condition. The lot on which this building is located is somewhat of an odd shape; it is considerably wider in front than in the rear; it is a corner lot, corner building. I have figured a rate of depreciation of 70 per cent. on this one; this depreciation figures $14,774.95 leaving a present value of $6,203.55. This present value applies to the building only, and is the damage that will be suffered by the owner of the property by reason of these proceedings, so far as the building is concerned. * * *

‘Q. As to the remainder, would there by (be) any value after the condemnationgoes through? A. Not of the building.

‘Q. No value at all? A. No.

‘Q. What does the back end consist of? A. It is part of the west store and the flat. The one flat, the east side flat, is right at the corner and does not go all the way back to the west end, while the west flat goes all the way from the front to the rear, and also the west store. In my opinion there is no value or just a little left. Those figures I gave show in my opinion the real damage suffered by reason of these proceedings, and would be the damage if the buildings were removed.’

Another witness for appellants testified regarding damage to the land as follows: ‘I figured the value on a square foot basis. Three dollars and a half per square foot is the price I put on it. There are 2,760 square feet at $3.50 per square foot, or a total valuation on the land of $9,660. Now, after taking, there will remain a very small triangular piece which will have 25.6 feet on Michigan, 46 feet on the west line and the same alley front of 2.6 feet; the total area is 649 square feet. On the remainder, due to the small area and peculiar shape, which would make building very expensive and out of proportion, I have reduced the value to $2 per square foot, a total valuation on the remainder of $1,298, which, subtracted from $9,660, leaves $7,362 (should be $8,362). That, in my opinion, is the fair value of damage suffered by these parties who own the property,-that is, on the land alone. Then you add the damage given to the building of $7,362 (should be $8,362) and you get a total land and building damage of $13,565.55 (should be $14,565.55), which is, in my opinion the amount of damage...