Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 16 of 20 Page ID#1769fees as provided by federal statute if Plaintiff prevails on its claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff estimates that those fees would be well over $1 million, and evenmore than that if this matter were to be taken through a full trial on the merits.These fees exceed the Township’s annual operating budget and would render theTownship insolvent without an immediate and extraordinary property tax hike. TheConsent Judgment safeguards the resources of the Township by avoiding this riskand also provides for a reimbursement to the Township of $75,000 for professionalexpenses incurred in connection with the Consent Judgment.Third, the Consent Judgment allows the Township to retain decision-makingcontrol over the land. A significant issue in this litigation is the claim of improperbias introduced by the payment of money to the Township by environmentaladvocates. As part of its requested relief, Plaintiff seeks to ensure a fair decisionmakerwith respect to all of its property holdings in the Township. The ConsentJudgment avoids Court involvement in land use decisions and leaves thosedecisions in the hands of the Township Planning Commission, subject to the termsof the Consent Judgment.c. The Township has the authority to agree to the entry of theConsent Judgment.The terms of the Consent Judgment are within the authority of a townshipunder Michigan law to resolve a dispute with a landowner. It is well-establishedthat a township has the authority to sue and to be sued, and inherent in thisauthority is the power to settle a lawsuit. See Presnell v. Bd of Cnty RdCommisionsers of Wayne Cty, 306 N.W.2d 516, 519 – 20 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981);16
Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 17 of 20 Page ID#1770Green Oak Township vs. Munzel, 661 N.W.2d 243, 247 n7 (Mich. App. 2003). Thepower to exercise this authority rests with the township board as the governingbody under state law. Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.2.The scope of the power to settle arises out of the claims in dispute. Where thereis an honest dispute that presents a real risk of an adverse outcome, a township isnot compelled to roll the dice and take a case to its conclusion via expensivelitigation. The Township can instead fashion a compromise that avoids the fullextent of the consequences presented by the claims against it. See Feily v. Bay ViewCamp Ground Ass'n of Methodist Episcopal Church, 210 Mich. 197, 206, 177 N.W.485, 488 (1920) (no requirement that municipality must resolve dispute throughexpensive litigation).When involved in a dispute over zoning, a township can enter into a consentjudgment that restores rights that the landowner contends were unlawfully takenaway. And a township can authorize new uses for specified locations, which aredeemed to be in the nature of a variance, without exceeding its power underMichigan law. The authority of a township to settle a lawsuit in this manner underMichigan law was carefully considered by the Michigan Court of Appeals in GreenOak Township vs. Munzel, supra. In Green Oak Township, the plaintiff sought todevelop a mobile home park and was denied rezoning. The plaintiff sued, and thematter was resolved through entry of a consent judgment that allowed thedevelopment of a mobile home park. The consent judgment was challenged asoutside the power of the township because the judgment did not follow the17
Page 2 and 3: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil
Page 20: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil

Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?