owner claim in Michigan

2018For example, in State ex rel Patterson v Weaver, 74 Mich App 462, 463-466 ; 254 NW2d 68 (1977), the owner of leased premises claimed not to know or acquiesce in the use of its premises as a house of prostitution, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute, MCL 600.3801 et seq.3 Likewise, in Bernstein, 57 Mich App at 205-206 , the owner of a bar that was used as a meeting place for prostitutes claimed to have done all that he could do to prevent such use, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute.

2018For example, in State ex rel Patterson v Weaver, 74 Mich App 462, 463-466 ; 254 NW2d 68 (1977), the owner of leased premises claimed not to know or acquiesce in the use of its premises as a house of prostitution, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute, MCL 600.3801 et seq.3 Likewise, in Bernstein, 57 Mich App at 205-206 , the owner of a bar that was used as a meeting place for prostitutes claimed to have done all that he could do to prevent such use, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute.

2018For example, in State ex rel Patterson v Weaver, 74 Mich App 462, 463-466 ; 254 NW2d 68 (1977), the owner of leased premises claimed not to know or acquiesce in the use of its premises as a house of prostitution, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute, MCL 600.3801 et seq.3 Likewise, in Bernstein, 57 Mich App at 205-206 , the owner of a bar that was used as a meeting place for prostitutes claimed to have done all that he could do to prevent such use, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute.

2018For example, in State ex rel Patterson v Weaver, 74 Mich App 462, 463-466 ; 254 NW2d 68 (1977), the owner of leased premises claimed not to know or acquiesce in the use of its premises as a house of prostitution, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute, MCL 600.3801 et seq.3 Likewise, in Bernstein, 57 Mich App at 205-206 , the owner of a bar that was used as a meeting place for prostitutes claimed to have done all that he could do to prevent such use, but this Court held that the nuisance was abatable under the padlock statute.

2018More recently, in Michigan ex rel Wayne Co v Bennis, 447 Mich 719 ; 527 NW2d 483 (1994), our Supreme Court reiterated that innocence is not a defense to a statutory claim for abatement of a public nuisance when it held that a wife’s interest in a motor vehicle, that had been used by her husband in a manner that violated MCL 600.3801, could be abated although she did not know or consent to such use.

2018More recently, in Michigan ex rel Wayne Co v Bennis, 447 Mich 719 ; 527 NW2d 483 (1994), our Supreme Court reiterated that innocence is not a defense to a statutory claim for abatement of a public nuisance when it held that a wife’s interest in a motor vehicle, that had been used by her husband in a manner that violated MCL 600.3801, could be abated although she did not know or consent to such use.

2017Because we must construe MCL 211.7dd(c) to avoid absurd results, see Houghton Lake Area Tourism & Convention Bureau v. Wood , 255 Mich. App. 127 , 142-143, 662 N.W.2d 758 (2003), we reject petitioner's interpretation.

2017Because we must construe MCL 211.7dd(c) to avoid absurd results, see Houghton Lake Area Tourism & Convention Bureau v. Wood , 255 Mich. App. 127 , 142-143, 662 N.W.2d 758 (2003), we reject petitioner's interpretation.

2019Id. at 527-528 .

2019Plaintiffs’ conclusion that only actual notice is sufficient to preclude damages under MCL 211.78l is not based on the statute, but comes from language in In re Petition by Treasurer of Wayne Co for Foreclosure, 478 Mich 1 ; 732 NW2d 458 (2007) (Perfecting Church).

2019Plaintiffs’ conclusion that only actual notice is sufficient to preclude damages under MCL 211.78l is not based on the statute, but comes from language in In re Petition by Treasurer of Wayne Co for Foreclosure, 478 Mich 1 ; 732 NW2d 458 (2007) (Perfecting Church).

2015If a portion of a parcel for which the owner claims an exemption is used for a purpose other than as a principal residence, the owner shall claim an exemption for only that portion of the taxable value of the property used as the principal residence of that owner in a manner prescribed by the department of treasury. [Emphasis added.] In EldenBrady, 294 Mich App at 252 , the petitioners owned a 10-acre parcel of property that was contiguous to the property on which their home was located.

2015If a portion of a parcel for which the owner claims an exemption is used for a purpose other than as a principal residence, the owner shall claim an exemption for only that portion of the taxable value of the property used as the principal residence of that owner in a manner prescribed by the department of treasury. [Emphasis added.] In EldenBrady, 294 Mich App at 252 , the petitioners owned a 10-acre parcel of property that was contiguous to the property on which their home was located.

2008While the former result may be required under the statute, see Stokes, supra at 675-677 , 649 N.W.2d 371 (2002) (Markman, J., concurring), I do not believe the latter result is.

1998Although the owner of such a privilege acquires a personal property interest whenever he bags a duck or lands a fish, this action is merely an incident in the enjoyment of the estate in real property. [Hanson v Ware, 224 Ark 430, 437 ; 274 SW2d 359 (1955). ]

1998Although the owner of such a privilege acquires a personal property interest whenever he bags a duck or lands a fish, this action is merely an incident in the enjoyment of the estate in real property. [Hanson v Ware, 224 Ark 430, 437 ; 274 SW2d 359 (1955). ]

1976These bonds required for public projects were intended 'to afford protection to the suppliers , of labor or materials, similar to that afforded under the mechanics’ lien laws in the case of private buildings or construction.’ "When Depression-era experience demonstrated the inadequacy of mechanics’ liens in many cases because the owner had a defense if he had paid the principal contractor, statutes like the Michigan Act of 1931 were enacted to afford a 'supplement to the Mechanics’ Lien Law,’ providing a more effective remedy for private project suppliers against their principal contractors th

1976These bonds required for public projects were intended 'to afford protection to the suppliers , of labor or materials, similar to that afforded under the mechanics’ lien laws in the case of private buildings or construction.’ "When Depression-era experience demonstrated the inadequacy of mechanics’ liens in many cases because the owner had a defense if he had paid the principal contractor, statutes like the Michigan Act of 1931 were enacted to afford a 'supplement to the Mechanics’ Lien Law,’ providing a more effective remedy for private project suppliers against their principal contractors th

1937J. p. 232;” McVannel v. Pure Oil Co., supra. Though one in possession of land claiming title is bound to pay the taxes thereon, Dubois v. Campau, 24 Mich. 360 ; McVannel v. Pure Oil Co., supra, there is no proof in this case that defendants or those in privity with them paid taxes upon the lands in controversy.

1908Wiltsie v. Harvey, 114 Mich. 131 .