Appellees Brief - MLive.com

4. DIBC‘s plans for the Access Road do not conform to the
requirements of the February 1, 2010 Order of this Court.
5. DIBC has not constructed the north or south special
return routes required by the Maintenance Agreement.
6. The design of 21st Street does not satisfy the
requirements of the Plans attached to the Performance
Bond.
7. DIBC has not conveyed the customary easement for
highway purposes as required by the August 11, 2011
Order of this Court. [11/3/11 Order at p.10.]
RECEIVED by Michigan Court of Appeals 1/27/2012 7:20:43 PM
A chief tenet of civil contempt is that the contemnor be able to purge the
contempt by complying with the violated order. The January 12, 2012 order
provides that Appellants will purge their contempt when they have ―fully complied
with the February 1, 2010 Order of this Court or they no longer have the power to
comply with the February 1, 2010 Order of this Court.‖ (1/12/12 Order at p.6.) To
purge their contempt, Appellants need only demonstrate to the trial court that they
have: (1) complied with the February 1, 2010 order; or (2) lack the power to comply
with that order. They have not done so, nor have they made any attempts to that
end.
Accordingly, MDOT respectfully requests that this Court affirm Judge
Edwards‘ January 12, 2012 order in all respects. Aside from jail, the only realistic
alternative for ensuring compliance is one that DIBC has already rejected:
(1) requiring DIBC to pay into escrow an amount sufficient to pay for the Gateway
Project improvements, (2) appointing of a receiver to manage the construction, and
3