Bonner v. City of Brighton
495 Mich. 209, 848 N.W.2d 380 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance creating a rebuttable presumption to demolish an unsafe structure without an option to repair when repair costs exceed the structure's value does not facially violate substantive or procedural due process, provided the ordinance is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and provides for notice, a hearing, and the right to judicial review.
Facts:
- Leon and Marilyn Bonner owned two residential properties in downtown Brighton, which contained three structures: two former homes and one barn/garage.
- For over 30 years, these structures had been unoccupied and were generally unmaintained.
- In January 2009, a City of Brighton building official declared the three structures "unsafe" and a public nuisance due to numerous defects, including collapsing porches and rotted siding.
- The official determined that the cost to repair the structures would exceed 100 percent of their true cash value as reflected on the tax rolls before they became unsafe.
- Pursuant to a city ordinance, this cost determination created a presumption that repairs were unreasonable.
- Consequently, the City of Brighton ordered the Bonners to demolish the structures within 60 days, without providing an option to repair.
Procedural Posture:
- The Bonners appealed the building official's demolition order to the Brighton City Council.
- The Brighton City Council affirmed the official's determination and upheld the demolition order.
- The Bonners filed an independent lawsuit in the Livingston Circuit Court (trial court) against the City of Brighton, alleging the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The circuit court granted partial summary disposition for the Bonners, finding the ordinance facially violated substantive due process.
- The City of Brighton, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding the ordinance violated both substantive and procedural due process.
- The City of Brighton, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that creates a rebuttable presumption for demolishing an unsafe structure without an option to repair, when repair costs exceed 100% of the structure's pre-unsafe cash value, facially violate the substantive and procedural due process protections of the Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, J.
No, the municipal ordinance does not facially violate substantive or procedural due process. A law creating a rebuttable presumption for demolition based on repair costs is constitutional if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and provides sufficient procedural safeguards. For substantive due process, the court found the right to repair an unsafe structure is not a fundamental right, so the ordinance only needed to pass rational basis review. The ordinance is reasonably related to the City's legitimate interest in protecting public health, safety, and welfare by abating nuisances. The presumption is not arbitrary because it is rebuttable; an owner can overcome it by presenting evidence that repair is reasonable, including evidence of the structure's cultural, historical, or other non-economic value. For procedural due process, the ordinance is constitutional because it provides property owners with notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard in an appeal before the city council, and the right to subsequent judicial review. An absolute right to repair is a substantive claim, not a required procedural safeguard.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between substantive and procedural due process challenges to municipal land use ordinances. It reinforces the high standard required for a facial constitutional challenge, affirming that a law is not unconstitutional merely because it might operate unconstitutionally in some circumstances. The ruling solidifies the broad police powers of municipalities to address public nuisances like unsafe buildings, establishing that a cost-based, rebuttable presumption for demolition is a permissible tool. This shifts the burden to the property owner to prove repair is reasonable, rather than granting an absolute right to repair, which provides cities with a more efficient mechanism for eliminating blight.
