Court Opinion

ID: 9516549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:45:08.479175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:33.414398
License: Public Domain

E. A. Quinnell, J.
(concurring). As the majority accurately notes, the courts of this state and the MLCC not only recognize the validity of security interests in property, they also recognize the enforceability of contracts for reassignment of liquor licenses. Based on Bundo v Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679; 238 NW2d 154 (1976), and Barr v Pontiac City Comm, 90 Mich App 446; 282 NW2d 348 (1979), I would hold that plaintiff did have a property right in the license in question sufficiently great so as to entitle him to notice of the hearing before the city council as well as the MLCC revocation proceeding involving Lawson’s liquor licenses.
*96The giving of such notice would not present any undue burden, in that the MLCC is aware of the identity of persons having such interests in licensed establishments. 1979 AC, R 436.122; 1980 AACS, R 436.1023.
Since the Lawson revocation proceedings are now completed, I concur in the remedy set forth in Judge Burns’ opinion.