Case Name: CITY OF MASON v. BUCHMAN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-08-29
Citations: 49 Mich. App. 98
Docket Number: Docket No. 14754
Parties: CITY OF MASON v BUCHMAN
Judges: Before: Fitzgerald, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and Adams, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 49
Pages: 98–105

Head Matter:
CITY OF MASON v BUCHMAN
Opinion op the Court
1. Nuisance — Public Nuisance — Abatement—Liability—Defenses.
In an action by a city for the abatement of a public nuisance and for the recovery of the costs of the abatement, the landowner may assert that the city created the nuisance and that he is not liable for the cost of abatement, since it is well established by ancient precedent that a city may not charge an innocent landowner for the cost of abatement of a nuisance the city has created and to deny application of the doctrine would require the innocent landowner to pay a judgment he ought not pay and then duplicate his evidence in a separate lawsüit the outcome of which is not certain.'
Dissent by Adams, J.
2. Nuisance — Public Nuisance — Abatement—Liability—Defenses.
The doctrine that the city cannot charge an innocent landowner for the cost of abatement of a nuisance the city has created is not applicable in an action by the city against the landowner for abatement of a public nuisance and for the recovery of the costs of the abatement where the nuisance was allegedly caused by tortious conduct, the city is not the sole purported tortfeasor, and a separate action is pending for damages resulting from the tortious conduct creating the nuisance; the parties responsible for the damage to the landowner’s building need not — and, in view of the evidence presented, cannot — be determined in the case at bar.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 58 Am Jur 2d, Nuisances §§ 106, 142.
Appeal from Ingham, Marvin J. Salmon, J.
Submitted Division 2 April 11, 1973, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 14754.)
Decided August 29, 1973.
Complaint by the City of Mason against William G. Buchman, Janet R. Buchman and others for abatement of a public nuisance and for an assessment of the costs of the abatement. Judgment for plaintiff for abatement and for defendants for-the costs of abatement. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John P. O’Brien, for plaintiff.
Kelley & Fagan, for defendants Buchman.
Before: Fitzgerald, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and Adams, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, J.
On May 7, 1968, in the city of Mason, Lawrence Barton, a contractor, was excavating for a new building on a vacant lot immediately east of defendants' building. The excavation was almost completed when, at about 11:30 a.m., a portion of the basement foundation of defendants' building gave way, involving a section of the footing under the southeast corner of the building estimated at from 6 to 8 feet deep and 5 to 16 feet in length. At 11:41 a.m., a section of the southeast brick wall above the footing fell and large cracks developed along the upper front story and laterally along the east side of the building. Between 12 and 12:30 p.m., Mason Police Chief Thomas Stoltz expressed concern to Barton that something should be done that day about the loose bricks on the southeast corner. Both Barton and Mr. Buchman, the owner, agreed that the condition of the southeast wall was potentially dangerous.
It is disputed as to what happened at about 1:45 to 2 p.m. when Barton stationed his backhoe operator before the building. Buchman claims he believed that Barton was just going to reach up with the backhoe to take off some loose bricks. Barton asserts that he received what he assumed was a direct order from Chief Stoltz to tear the building down. In any event, the backhoe operator knocked in the entire front and a portion of one side wall of the building.
On July 3, 1968, the city notified defendants to remove the building because it constituted a public hazard and a nuisance. Defendants responded that they were financially unable to do so and that they were also unable to arrive at a settlement with the parties responsible for the damage.
The City of Mason filed this action to have the partially collapsed building declared a nuisance and a public hazard, for an order for demolition of the building, and for a determination that defendants be assessed the costs of demolition. Circuit Judge Sam Street Hughes found the building to be a public nuisance and ordered it demolished. The findings of Judge Hughes are not contested.
Later, after a nonjury trial before Circuit Judge Marvin J. Salmon regarding assessment of the costs of demolition carried out by the city, Judge Salmon found that the city was at least partly responsible for the collapse of the building. He determined that Chief Stoltz, acting with apparent authority, issued the order which "touched off" events resulting in the building being so damaged as to become a nuisance and a hazard. The judge concluded that defendants were in no way responsible for a situation "that was just pushed on them". Finding defendants blameless, he concluded that they should not be required to pay to abate the nuisance. This appeal has been taken from the judgment of no cause of action entered in defendants' favor and presents for our resolution the question of whether defendants must reim burse plaintiff for expenses incurred in fazing defendants' building.
The Mason city charter specifies that an action will lie for the abatement of a public nuisance and for the recovery of the costs of abatement from the landowner if, as in this case, the city finds it necessary to proceed with the abatement. See also 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), § 24.79, p 638-641; 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), § 24.561, p 596; 66 CJS, Nuisances, § 138, p 945. No question is raised as to the reasonableness of the costs which were incurred to abate the nuisance.
However, it is well established by ancient precedent that a city may not charge an innocent landowner for the cost of abatement of a nuisance the city has created. City of Hannibal v Richards, 82 Mo 330 (1884); Weeks v Milwaukee, 10 Wis 242 (1860); Patrick v Omaha, 1 Neb (unofficial) 250; 95 NW 477 (1901); Lasbury v McCague, 56 Neb 220; 76 NW 862 (1898); see also 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), § 24.62, pp 611-612; 62 CJS, Municipal Corporations, § 281(d)(1), p 635. The finding by the trial judge that the city, through Chief Stoltz, "touched off' the events resulting in the creation of a nuisance for which the landowners were blameless, precludes recovery by the city.
To deny application of that doctrine would require the innocent landowners to pay a judgment they ought not to and then duplicate their evidence in a separate lawsuit the outcome of which is not certain. We see no reason why the Buchmans cannot assert their innocence in this case.
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
Fitzgerald, P. J., concurred.