498 F. App'x 507
6th Cir.2012Background
- Mills bought commercial property on Clifford Road via land contract; tax foreclosure transferred title to the County in 2009 with no right of redemption for Mills.
- County issued a Notice to Quit on May 8, 2009, demanding vacatur by June 9, 2009; locks were changed after the deadline.
- County removed property from the premises and stored or discarded items, with some items later recovered by Mills.
- District court held Mills was a trespasser at eviction and thus not protected by Michigan Anti-Lockout Statute or a cognizable due-process property interest.
- A subsequent summary-judgment decision dismissed Mills’s remaining claims; Mills appealed.
- Court ultimately affirmed, holding Mills was a trespasser, the eviction did not violate the Anti-Lockout Statute or due process, Fourth Amendment seizure was reasonable, and First Amendment claim was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenant vs. trespasser status at eviction | Mills was a tenant at sufferance after lawful possession | Mills never became a tenant at sufferance; owner did not acquiesce | Mills was a trespasser at eviction |
| Whether eviction violated Michigan Anti-Lockout Statute | Statute protects tenants against unlawful self-help | Statute applies only to tenants, trespassers excluded | Statute did not apply to Mills as a trespasser |
| Procedural due process for eviction | Due process requires pre-eviction hearing | No due process violation if no cognizable property interest | No due-process violation; no protected property interest as trespasser |
| Fourth Amendment seizure of property | Property seizure was unreasonable self-help | Seizure reasonable given landlord’s belief of rightful eviction | Seizure was reasonable; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| First Amendment retaliation claim | Eviction retaliation for prior lawsuits | No objection to magistrate judge’s waiver; no live issue | Claim waived; not preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Deroshia v. Union Terminal Piers, 391 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (self-help eviction discussed; context for lawful force)
- Grant v. Detroit Ass’n of Women’s Clubs, 505 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. 1993) (Anti-Lockout Statute purpose; eviction policy)
- Nelson v. Grays, 531 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (statutory interpretation of “tenant” under Anti-Lockout Statute)
- Pattison v. Dryer, 57 N.W. 814 (Mich. 1894) (definition of tenancy at sufferance)
- Auto Parts, Inc. v. Jack Smith Beverages, Inc., 16 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. 1944) (holding over after termination; tenancy status implications)