Bonner v. City of Brighton
495 Mich. 209
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Bonners own two Brighton properties with three unoccupied structures deemed unsafe under BCO §§ 18-46 and 18-59.
- BCO § 18-59 creates a rebuttable presumption that repairs exceeding 100% of pre-unsafe value render a structure a nuisance eligible for demolition without repair option.
- City notified owners and ordered demolition within 60 days, with no repair option initially available.
- Owners appealed to the city council under BCO § 18-61; council affirmed demolition as unsafe and unreasonable to repair.
- Owners filed a circuit-court action asserting constitutional claims; City sought to enforce demolition; circuit court ruled BCO § 18-59 facially unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Supreme Court reversed, holding § 18-59 not facially unconstitutional for substantive or procedural due process; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 18-59 violate substantive due process on its face? | Bonner: unreasonable-to-repair presumption denies repair option. | City: presumption reasonably related to public health and welfare. | No facial substantive due process violation. |
| Does § 18-59 violate procedural due process on its face? | Bonner: lacks adequate repair option; procedures insufficient. | City: notice, appeal to city council, and judicial review provide due process. | No facial procedural due process violation. |
| Should the analyses of substantive and procedural due process be separated? | Bonner contends the court conflated claims. | City: distinct tests must be applied separately. | Court properly treated separately; no error in separation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v. Michigan, 459 Mich. 291 (Mich. 1998) (facial challenge standard; no set of circumstances can sustain invalidity)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (Mathews balancing test for due process procedures)
- Dearborn Twp v. Dail, 334 Mich. 673 (Mich. 1952) (framework for procedural due process and notice)
- Klooster v. City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich. 289 (Mich. 2011) (statutory interpretation and due process considerations for ordinances)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (due process notice and opportunity to be heard)