Source: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fdco%2020100913839.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr
Timestamp: 2013-05-20 08:37:41
Document Index: 329269018

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 600', '§ 636', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

MILLS v. LAPEER COUNTY - September 13, 2010.
• MILLS v. LAPEER... View Case
| Follow Leagle on Twitter | MILLS v. LAPEER COUNTY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 11) AND TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 16) AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (DKT. 19) AS MOOTMARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge.Plaintiffs Mark and Ellen Mills ("Plaintiffs") filed this action, in which they allege that Defendants Lapeer County and Dana Miller ("Defendants") violated MCL § 600.2918 (Michigan's anti-lockout statute), MCL § 600.2919a (Michigan's conversion statute), MCL § 600.5701 (Michigan's landlord tenant statute) and the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, when Defendants removed Plaintiffs' personal property from a commercial parcel of real estate following a tax foreclosure.Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 11), Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 16) and Plaintiffs' motion to amend (Dkt. 19). All pretrial matters were referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (Dkt. 3). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be DENIED and that Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Further, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to amend is DENIED AS MOOT.1I.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThe facts in this case are largely undisputed. Plaintiffs were the land contract vendees of a property located on Clifford Road in Lapeer County, Michigan (the "Property"). Neither the land contract vendor nor Plaintiffs paid the property taxes for the Property and Defendant Lapeer County — following proper tax foreclosure procedures — obtained title to the Property for failure to pay taxes on February 23, 2009. On or about May 4-7, 2009 Defendant Dana M. Miller ("Ms. Miller"), Treasurer of Lapeer County, had conversations with Plaintiff Ellen Mills regarding how much time Plaintiffs would have to vacate the Property. However, no resolution was reached.Thereafter, on or about May 8 or May 9, 2009, Ms. Miller on behalf of Lapeer County, caused a Notice to Quit the Property to be served on Plaintiffs (Dkt. 11; Ex. 1), which indicated that, if the Property were not vacated within thirty (30) days, an eviction action would be instituted. On or about June 9-11, 2009, Defendants, without further notice, or judicial order, removed Plaintiffs' possessions from the Property. Plaintiffs allege that the process of removal continued over several days with County employees, "trustys" from the Lapeer County Jail, private contractors, friends and relatives of County employees and their agents entering and leaving the Property at will, removing and destroying Plaintiffs' personal property and taking some of it to the County complex. <<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next>> Footnotes1. Plaintiffs' motion to amend is denied as moot since Plaintiffs' recently filed a second motion to amend, which will be the subject of a future hearing and order.Back to Reference2. Specifically, Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment requests dismissal of Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims and Plaintiffs' breach of contract, wrongful eviction and conversion claims. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment does not address Plaintiffs' fraud and misrepresentation claim.Back to Reference3. The plaintiff's claims in Cox were dismissed because the plaintiff voluntarily vacated her home after receiving a Notice to Quit, but prior to the scheduled eviction hearing.Back to Reference4. Plaintiffs also allege a First Amendment retaliation claim and a § 1983 conspiracy, but neither party extensively discussed these claims in their summary judgment briefs and the undersigned will not analyze these claims in this Report and Recommendation. Defendants can move for summary judgment on these claims at a later date, if they so choose.Back to Reference