Theresa Cassini v. Charter Township of Van Buren
330343
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 16, 2017Background
- Cassini owned a partially reconstructed home that had been fire-damaged, demolished, and stalled in reconstruction; neighbors complained about blight and safety hazards.
- Van Buren Township cited multiple ordinance violations, obtained a district-court conviction ordering remediation, and in August 2015 issued an "Order of Demolition" stating the structure was dilapidated and advising Cassini of a 20‑day right to appeal to the township construction board of appeals.
- Cassini executed a purchase agreement for the property in September 2015; township notified her of the demolition order and requested information about the sale; Cassini’s counsel disputed procedural compliance but did not provide the requested documentation.
- Cassini filed for a temporary restraining order and injunction in October 2015; the trial court entered a TRO, set a hearing, then, after defendant moved (and argued) for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2), vacated the TRO, denied the preliminary injunction, and dismissed the complaint for permanent injunction.
- Trial court rested dismissal on two independent grounds: Cassini failed to exhaust the available administrative appeal and money damages would be an adequate remedy (i.e., no irreparable harm). Cassini appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated due process by granting summary disposition sua sponte without giving Cassini time to respond or amend | Cassini: trial court granted summary disposition without adequate notice or opportunity to be heard and did not sua sponte allow amendment to seek monetary damages | Van Buren: its response to the injunction put summary disposition at issue; Cassini had notice and an opportunity at the hearing and could have requested an adjournment or sought to amend | Held: No due process violation — Cassini had notice (defendant’s brief raised summary‑disposition grounds) and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; she did not request adjournment or file a response |
| Whether the court erred by not sua sponte granting Cassini leave to amend to seek monetary damages under MCR 2.116(I)(5) | Cassini: trial court should have allowed amendment to pursue money damages as alternative relief | Van Buren: Cassini never sought leave to amend or asserted a damages claim in the trial court | Held: No error — MCR 2.116(I)(5) does not require the court to sua sponte offer leave to amend; Cassini never requested amendment |
| Whether Cassini was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking injunctive relief in circuit court | Cassini: argued trial court improperly dismissed without full factual development (and asserted interference with sale) | Van Buren: Cassini had an available administrative appeal to the construction board of appeals and failed to pursue it; exhaustion is required | Held: Trial court properly dismissed — failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred relief in circuit court |
| Whether Cassini was entitled to injunctive relief (irreparable harm) given availability of monetary damages | Cassini: demolition interfered with a $91,000 sale; injunction needed to protect that contract | Van Buren: monetary damages would provide adequate relief for lost sale; no irreparable injury shown | Held: Monetary damages would be adequate; injunctive relief not warranted, so dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich. 209 (2014) (standard of appellate review for summary disposition)
- Al‑Maliki v. LaGrant, 286 Mich. App. 483 (2009) (procedural due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Kloian v. Schwartz, 272 Mich. App. 232 (2006) (court not required to sua sponte offer leave to amend under MCR 2.116(I)(5))
- Jeffrey v. Clinton Twp., 195 Mich. App. 260 (1992) (injunctive relief is extraordinary; requires no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm)
- Michigan Supervisors Union OPEIU Local 512 v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 209 Mich. App. 573 (1995) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required when an administrative grievance procedure exists)
- Manor House Apartments v. Warren, 204 Mich. App. 603 (1994) (explains futility exception to exhaustion requirement)
- Campau v. City of Detroit, 225 Mich. 519 (1923) (monetary damages are an established remedy in condemnation/takings suits)