Merkur Steel Supply, Inc. v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 241950.

• Citation: 261 Mich. App. 116,680 N.W.2d 485
• Decision Date: 26 May 2004
• Docket Number: Docket No. 241950.
• Parties: MERKUR STEEL SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

680 N.W.2d 485

261 Mich. App. 116

MERKUR STEEL SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 241950.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted December 16, 2003, at Detroit.

Decided March 9, 2004, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication May 26, 2004.

Law Offices of Mark S. Demorest (by Mark S. Demorest), Dearborn, for the plaintiff.

James C. Cobb, Jr., P.C. (by James C. Cobb, Jr.), Detroit, for the defendant.

Before: MURRAY, P.J., and GAGE and KELLY, JJ.

GAGE, J.

Plaintiff Merkur Steel Supply, Inc., leases a parcel of property of approximately eleven acres in the city of Detroit. The property is adjacent to Detroit City Airport. The property contains a 188,000 square foot building and several acres of the property are vacant. For approximately ten years before this lawsuit, plaintiff attempted to expand its operations to no avail. The plans for expansion were repeatedly thwarted by city action.

Plaintiff initiated the present action against defendant city of Detroit for inverse condemnation. A jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for approximately $7 million. The city now appeals as of right. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

To fully understand the nature of the cause of action, we must thoroughly review the relationship between the parties before us and the allegations set forth against the city.

Sometime in 1987, the city started its efforts to expand Detroit City Airport. In that year, the city signed an agreement with Southwest Airlines for Southwest to provide jet service to the airport. The agreement obligated the city to undertake a capital improvement at the airport. Apparently during this time, the city was not complying with existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, as some of the buildings near the airport, including plaintiff's, were too close to the existing runway. However, it appears the FAA granted temporary waivers to the city for the noncompliance.

Beginning in 1988, the city accepted grant money from the FAA and the state of Michigan to maintain and expand the airport. The grants all contained the condition that the city agree to prohibit the construction of new improvements and remove any existing hazards on the property near the airport.¹ Around 1989, Karl Thomas and Hein Rusen, owners of plaintiff company, began contemplating constructing a 40,000 square foot addition to the existing building on their property in order to expand their business. The addition would be located on five acres that are vacant. In June 1990, plaintiff filed a notice of construction with the FAA. On December 19, 1990, the director of Detroit City Airport wrote a letter to the FAA objecting to plaintiff's building of the proposed structure. But in January 1991, the FAA issued a determination that construction of the proposed addition would not be a hazard to aviation; this determination was set to expire on August 24, 1992. In the meantime, the city filed an airport layout plan in April 1992, which put plaintiff's property directly in the way of the proposed airport expansion. In July 1992, plaintiff applied to the FAA for an extension determination, but in August 1992, the FAA revoked its "no hazard" determination because of the city's airport layout plan. Also during this time plaintiff applied for a building permit from the city, but it was denied.

In 1996, the city filed a revised layout plan showing the new airport runway going right through plaintiff's property. Apparently, because the city took no further action to condemn plaintiff's property, in September 1997, plaintiff wrote to then City Airport Director Suzette Robinson to inform her that it wished to proceed with its development. After receiving no response, plaintiff sent Robinsonl a second letter in October 1997, informing her that it would proceed with construction unless the city advised it that no building would be approved. Plaintiff again received no response. Thereafter, in November 1997, plaintiff hired an architectural firm to prepare plans for construction.

On July 2, 1999, the FAA issued a determination that the new building would be a hazard to aviation. On July 26, 1999, the Michigan Aeronautics Bureau issued a tall structure permit to plaintiff but attached certain conditions. The permit recognized that while the forty-foot building would not interfere with aviation, it could interfere with the city's plans to expand the airport. It issued the permit with the condition that the proponent or any subsequent owners of the proposed building would not receive reimbursement for the building or any businesses associated with the building if the property was acquired for expansion. At this point, plaintiff alleges it considered its project dead.

Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit for inverse condemnation against the city in September 1999. In part, plaintiff alleged that the city's filing of an airport layout plan constituted a taking of plaintiff's property without just, compensation. The city filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that the complaint stated claims against the state and federal governments that were beyond the circuit court's jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion for summary disposition on September 5, 2001.

Trial was bifurcated into two phases, liability and damages. At the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs, the city filed a motion for a directed verdict, arguing in part that the filing of an airport layout plan could not constitute a taking per se; that there was no evidence that any regulation imposed by the airport layout plan denied plaintiff all economically viable use of its land; that the court must apply a balancing test to determine whether a taking occurred; and that it was improper to segment the property and determine whether only the five acres on which plaintiff planned to build was taken. The trial court denied the motion.

At the conclusion of the liability phase of trial, the jury was asked to decide whether the city inversely condemned plaintiff's property and, if so, on what date the inverse condemnation occurred. The jury determined that the city's conduct amounted to a taking and that the taking occurred in December 1990. During the damages phase of trial, the jury was asked to determine: (1) whether plaintiff suffered damages, (2) the amount of just compensation to which plaintiff is entitled to date from January 1, 1991, (3) plaintiff's future damages, and (4) the amount of just compensation each month for which plaintiff is entitled to in the future. Following this phase of trial, the city again sought a directed verdict, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish the value of its property. The trial court denied the motion.

On March 7, 2002, the jury determined that plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $6.8 million and would continue to suffer damages in the amount of $3,800 each month. The city filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court again denied the motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The city raises issues dealing with the trial court's rulings on several motions below as well as various other aspects of the trial. In its brief on appeal, the city erroneously states that the standard of review for this case is the plain error standard set forth in People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). Despite the city's erroneous assertion, we will lay out the appropriate standards of review for the issues raised.

Part III(A) of this opinion addresses the city's argument that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition. While the city brought its motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), the trial court reviewed the motion under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone. Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124, 129, 631 N.W.2d 308 (2001). All factual allegations in support of the claim are accepted as true, as well as any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from the facts, and must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 119, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). When deciding this motion, the court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 461 Mich. 73, 76, 597 N.W.2d 517 (1999). On appeal, the trial court's decision is reviewed de novo. Dressel v. Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557, 561, 664 N.W.2d 151 (2003).

Parts III(B) and III(F) primarily address the city's motion for directed verdict and JNOV. A directed verdict is appropriate only when no material factual questions exist on which reasonable minds could differ. Cacevic v. Simplematic Engineering Co. (On Remand), 248 Mich. App. 670, 679-680, 645 N.W.2d 287 (2001). The trial court's decision on a motion for directed verdict is reviewed de novo. Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich. 124, 131, 666 N.W.2d 186 (2003). Judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only when there was insufficient evidence presented to create an issue for the jury. Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 249 Mich.App. 534, 547, 643 N.W.2d 580 (2002) (opinion by Cooper, P.J.). When deciding a motion for JNOV, the trial court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the facts presented preclude judgment for the nonmoving party as a matter of law. Id. A trial court's decision on a motion for...