Interpretation & application of the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA) (MCL 213.51 et seq); MCL 213.55(1) & (3)(a); Good-faith written offer requirement; Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC)

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 12/17/20.] The court held that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that defendant-Community Mills’ challenges to the written offer concerned whether plaintiff-IMPC “offered an amount that constituted just compensation and not whether it was made in good faith.” Thus, it reversed summary disposition for Community Mills under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and remanded. IMPC argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the UCPA. “The trial court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because IMPC failed to tender a good-faith written offer to obtain property interests across land owned by Community Mills.” However, the court held that “the deficiencies Community Mills complained of and found by the trial court did not reflect a failure to tender a good-faith written offer. Rather, the alleged deficiencies effectively pertained to ascertaining the proper amount of just compensation.” The court recognized that “there can be a fine line between an offer that is so unsubstantiated that it can be characterized as revealing a lack of good faith and an offer that is made in good faith but does not accurately reflect an amount that equates to just compensation.” But the record did not support a finding that IMPC tendered the written offer in bad faith. Also, “the trial court ruled that it could not entertain the condemnation action because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction while at the same time the court effectively concluded that the written offer did not amount to just compensation because all aspects of the loss Community Mills might suffer were not considered. This is part of the determination to be made by the trier of fact during litigation, i.e., when jurisdiction is being exercised.”