After years of legal wrangling, the controversy over downtown Oxford’s northeast parking lot could finally be over ? or it could be starting yet another chapter.
Last week, a case evaluation panel appointed by the Oakland County Circuit Court awarded Knauf Family Properties the sum of $425,000 (which includes interest and attorney fees) for the parking property they once owned in the northeast quadrant.
Normally, parties going through case evaluation have 28 days to accept or reject the award, but in this case the village and Knaufs have agreed to make their respective decisions by Friday morning.
‘I think it’s an interesting number because I think it places both parties in a position where you really have to think about it,? said village attorney Bob Davis. ‘Whenever I get a case where I really have to think about the number, I think the evaluators have done their job.?
Local attorney Lee Knauf, spokesperson for his family on this issue, did not return phone calls seeking comment on the award.
If either side rejects the award, the case will go to a jury trial in circuit court beginning Tuesday, Aug. 5. If that happens, Davis estimated such a trial would take two full days.
The approximately 22,000-square-foot property (which is really two parcels) in question forms a large chunk of the northeast parking lot. It contains roughly 54 parking spaces plus a loading/drop-off zone, an aisle way which allows vehicles to travel between the lot’s north and south ends, and portions of the sidewalk area behind businesses like Red Knapp’s and A&A Flowers.
Last summer, via a consent judgment, the village received title to the property and paid the Knaufs the $170,000 that it and the DDA had sitting in escrow since this legal battle began in July 2002 when the village started condemnation proceedings regarding the property.
In April 2006, the Knaufs purchased the property from the Grove family, with whom the village’s legal battle began, for a purported $825,000, according to court documents.
In a July 16 opinion from village attorney Bob Bunting to council, he urged officials to pay the $425,000, which includes the $170,000 the village has already paid. In essence, the village would actually pay the Knaufs $255,000, if the award is accepted.
‘We would recommend that you accept this award since it would put an end to this litigation,? he wrote.
When asked if he thinks the Knaufs will accept or reject it, Davis replied, ‘Don’t know. They’re hard to read.?
Exactly how much the property is worth is not clear because the case evaluators did not provide a breakdown detailing how they arrived at the $425,000 figure.
‘They don’t do that because they don’t want any confusion.,? Davis explained. ‘Normally, when you go to case evaluation they give you a net number and that … represents all components of your award.?
‘Their job isn’t to put a number on it that they think is right. Their job is to put a number on it that gets you to settle.?
Whatever council decided during its closed session meeting Tuesday night regarding this matter will not be known until Friday morning.
The village’s attorneys advised officials to keep their acceptance or rejection confidential until the Friday morning settlement conference.
‘If the other side knew we rejected, there might be posturing involved where they knew they could accept without facing sanctions,? Bunting wrote. ‘Likewise, if they knew we accepted, they may not chose to accept to prolong the litigation and hope to improve their position.?
According to Bunting’s letter, the Knaufs previously requested an award of $1,419,500 from case evaluation.
But Davis said the Knaufs felt even that figure wasn’t enough. ‘Based on what I’ve heard them say in testimony, I get the sense they’re not happy with $1.4 million,? he said.
The last appraisal the village had done valued the property at $205,000.
Bunting reminded council that rejecting the case evaluators? award carries ‘serious sanctions.?
‘If one side accepts and the other side rejects and the rejecting side does not improve his position by 10 percent at trial, reasonable attorney fees and costs are taxable to the rejecting side,? he wrote.
In this case, if the rejecting side doesn’t receive at least $42,500 more than the $425,000 award by taking this matter to trial, they pay the other side’s attorney bills and costs. ‘If Knauf rejects, the burden of getting (close) to $500,000 at trial with a jury is risky,? Davis said.
As of June 30, the village has spent $155,000 on the legal battle over this lot, which includes $20,000 from the DDA.
‘This case should have long ago been resolved with some meaningful number,? Davis noted ‘It’s just amazing to me that you can have two parcels of property and have one person believe it’s (worth) two or three hundred grand and the other person is above a million (dollars). It’s a big difference.?