Grand Traverse County Land Bank Authority v. Verizon Wireless
332804
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Great Northern owned 14 acres with a 450‑foot radio/cell tower and utility building; Verizon had a long‑term lease permitting replacement of the tower and requiring removal at lease end unless Great Northern consented to transfer title to improvements.
- Verizon replaced the tower in 2000, later removed its equipment, and in 2013 told Great Northern it would not remove the tower; Great Northern consented to Verizon leaving it in place.
- Great Northern failed to pay 2009 property taxes; Grand Traverse County foreclosed and acquired title to the real property via judgment.
- The county (through its land bank) sued for a declaratory judgment that the tower and utility building are fixtures that passed to the county in foreclosure.
- At summary disposition the circuit court held the tower was a fixture; Great Northern appealed and also sought reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tower is a fixture that passed to the county in tax foreclosure | Great Northern: tower is personal property because lease allowed removal; county treated tower as separable personalty in purchase talks; tower can be physically removed | Land Bank: tower is annexed to land, adapted to the land’s use (broadcasting), and parties intended it remain as a permanent accession | Court: tower is a fixture — annexed, adapted to property’s sole use, and parties’ objective intent favored permanence |
| Whether denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion | Great Northern: new correspondence/negotiation evidence shows county treated tower as personalty, justifying reconsideration | Land Bank: evidence could have been presented at summary disposition; reconsideration requires palpable error or newly available evidence | Court: no abuse of discretion — evidence was available earlier and motion did not show palpable error |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne County v. Britton Trust, 454 Mich. 608 (reaffirming three‑part fixture test: annexation, adaptation, intent)
- Morris v. Alexander, 208 Mich. 387 (original articulation of three‑part fixture test)
- Kent Storage Co. v. Grand Rapids Lumber Co., 239 Mich. 161 (definition of fixture concept)
- Granger Land Dev. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 286 Mich. App. 601 (constructive annexation by size/character)
- Mich. Nat’l Bank v. Lansing, 96 Mich. App. 551 (objective manifestation of intent and trade‑fixture principles)
- West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (summary disposition standard guidance)
- Zaher v. Miotke, 300 Mich. App. 132 (summary disposition / genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Wood Hydraulic Hoist & Body Co. v. Norton, 269 Mich. 341 (examples of items deemed fixtures)