## Facts

- David Kircher owned two properties in Ypsilanti, Michigan: the Thompson Building (a historic commercial building) and a 17-unit apartment building on West Cross Street.
- For years, the City and Fire Marshal pursued enforcement to compel correction of serious building and fire code violations at both properties.
- A 1996 agreed order appointed a limited receiver for exterior compliance work at the Thompson Building and allowed Kircher to act as contractor if he performed timely and in compliance with ordinances.
- Kircher failed to complete required work; a 1997 final order required completion within 120 days and authorized the City to complete repairs and recover costs through liens collectible through property taxes if Kircher did not comply.
- In 2001, the City filed a nuisance-abatement action regarding the West Cross Street apartments, alleging violations of the state fire prevention code and local codes.
- In 2002, the City filed another action concerning the Thompson Building, alleging code violations and violations of the 1996 and 1997 orders.
- After show-cause proceedings, the circuit court found the Thompson Building unsafe and a public nuisance and appointed attorney Robert C. Barnes as receiver with authority to make the building functional and to incur costs chargeable to Kircher and secured by liens.
- The receiver performed stabilization and repair work and filed separate lien-foreclosure actions for both properties; the circuit court entered foreclosure judgments in 2005.
- Kircher appealed as of right from the foreclosure judgments and challenged related nuisance/receivership orders; the appeals were consolidated due to common subject matter and overlapping facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction and equitable authority, including under the Fire Prevention Code, to declare the properties public nuisances, appoint a receiver, and authorize liens and foreclosure.
2. Whether appointing a receiver with broad remedial authority was an abuse of discretion, including whether purportedly adequate legal remedies made receivership improper and whether the trial court failed to maintain sufficient supervision.
3. Whether the receiver’s liens and foreclosure judgments were valid as to notice, lien priority, and the necessity and reasonableness of specific expenditures charged to the properties.
4. Whether nuisance enforcement, liens, and foreclosure constituted an unconstitutional taking or violated due process.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- The court upheld the circuit court’s determinations that both properties constituted public nuisances and that abatement could be ordered.
- The court held the circuit court had broad statutory and equitable authority to appoint a receiver and to secure abatement costs through liens enforceable by foreclosure.
- The court rejected Kircher’s arguments that the receivership was improper due to adequate legal remedies and rejected the claim that the trial court had abdicated oversight.
- The court rejected takings and due-process challenges, concluding the proceedings provided notice and an opportunity to be heard and that police-power abatement of code violations is not a compensable taking.
- The court vacated limited portions of the foreclosure judgments and remanded for narrower proceedings to clarify and recalculate certain charges and lien-related details consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Circuit courts possess broad equitable jurisdiction to restrain and abate continuing public nuisances, including dangerous building and fire hazards, alongside statutory enforcement authority.
- The Fire Prevention Code authorizes judicial enforcement and remedies to abate hazardous conditions and public nuisances.
- A receiver may be appointed under equitable principles and court rule when necessary to preserve property, effectuate compliance, and address persistent violations, particularly after repeated noncompliance with court orders.
- Receivership orders may authorize abatement-related expenditures to be secured by liens on the property and enforced through foreclosure, subject to judicial review for scope and support.
- Police-power actions to abate dangerous conditions and recover abatement costs generally do not constitute a compensable taking when the owner’s violations necessitated the remedial measures.
- Procedural due process is satisfied where the owner receives notice and meaningful opportunities to contest nuisance findings, receivership actions, and claimed expenditures.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that Michigan circuit courts may use broad equitable and statutory powers to abate dangerous building and fire code nuisances through receivership and enforceable liens, while requiring that foreclosure amounts and lien details be supported and limited to authorized, abatement-related expenditures.


Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 273 Mich. App. 496, 730 N.W.2d 481 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007)