It appears the Knauf family no longer has to worry about battling the Village of Oxford in court because they’ve been officially kicked off the six-year-old case concerning the value of two parcels in downtown’s northeast parking lot.
On Friday, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Fred Mester issued an order declaring that Nathan Grove Family, LLC be substituted as the party defendant in place of Knauf Family Properties, LLC.
‘I think this case is unraveling a little bit (for the Knaufs),? said village attorney Bob Davis.
Attorney Lee Knauf, who’s served as his family’s spokesman in the past, refused to comment, while Nathan Grove did not return a phone call.
The village and Knaufs were originally scheduled to meet Friday morning to find out what the other side was planning to do ? accept or reject the $425,000 case evaluation award concerning approximately 22,000-square-feet of asphalt and concrete containing roughly 54 parking spaces in downtown’s northeast quadrant.
But the judge ordered the Knaufs couldn’t be the defendant because even though they purportedly purchased the property from the Groves for $825,000 in spring 2006, the village has held title to the land since it was condemned by the municipality on July 10, 2002.
?(The Knaufs) cannot be an owner,? Davis said. ‘It’s impossible for them to be an owner.?
Yes, it’s quite confusing.
Back on June 27, 2007, the Knaufs and Groves swapped places as the defendant in this case and the legal challenge to the village’s argument for taking the property was finally dropped.
This case was taken all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court, which, in October 2006, remanded the case back to circuit court for further proceedings.
All along the village argued that maintaining free public parking was a necessity and thus justified the 2002 condemnation of the private property originally owned by the Grove family, who planned to turn it into a pay-to-park facility.
Under the law, when a challenge to the necessity for the taking is withdrawn, as it was in this case, or overturned, title to the property is presumed to date back to when it was condemned by the government. In this case, that date is July 10, 2002.
‘How could (the Groves) sell something in 2006, if title was in the village as of 2002?? Davis said. ‘How then could there be a sale between Groves and Knaufs in 2006? Whose property were they selling??
Davis argued this point for a while, but no one was listening. ‘At first nobody looked at that very seriously,? he said.
Then the judged latched on to his idea and the result was Mester’s latest order.
‘The Knaufs have no standing here,? Davis said. ‘They cannot be an owner. It’s impossible for them to be an owner.?
‘The Groves have to be the party,? he explained. ‘Which I think is going to cause some interesting discussions in their camp.?
As a result of Mester’s order, the deadline to accept or reject the case evaluation award has been extended to 8:30 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 4.
In a July 16 confidential attorney/client privilege letter that was accidentally given to this newspaper by village Manager Joe Young, village attorney Bob Bunting recommended council accept and pay the $425,000 award, which includes interest and attorney fees.
The village previously paid $170,000 to the Knaufs, so if the award was accepted by the Groves, the municipality would owe another $255,000.
If either the village or the Groves reject the award, the case will go to trial at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, Sept. 18 instead of the original date of Tuesday, Aug. 5.
‘I think in reality the court adjourned the trial to give the Groves and the Knaufs some time to figure out what the hell’s going on,? Davis said.
Davis is still puzzled over why the Knaufs purchased the property from the Groves in the first place.
‘It just seems like an odd sale,? he said. ‘I just don’t understand the rationale of that purported sale.?
When the Knaufs bought it, the case was being reviewed by the state Supreme Court. ‘There was a chance there would be nothing to buy,? Davis said. ‘So all you would be buying is litigation ? the right to go to a trial. Who really wants to buy that? Usually lawyers don’t want to buy that. You try to avoid that.?
‘Whatever (the Knaufs) were trying to do by purchasing it, it isn’t panning out,? he noted.
Throughout this case, the Knaufs have maintained the property was worth somewhere between $1.4 million and $1.8 million. In addition to cash, the Knaufs also wanted other village-owned properties plus a myriad of other conditions and demands.
As of June 30, the village had spent $155,000 in legal fees on this case, which includes $20,000 from the Downtown Development Authority.