Condemnation; Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA); Good-faith written offer; MCL 213.55(1); Complaint requirements; MCL 213.55(4); Subject-matter jurisdiction; MCR 2.116(C)(4); Indiana MI Power Co v Community Mills Inc; Public use; Const 1963, art 10, § 2; Eminent domain; MCL 213.23; Public park; MCL 123.61; Necessity; MCL 213.56(2); Fraud, error of law, or abuse of discretion; Wayne Cnty v Hathcock; Subpoenas; Commissioner testimony; Relevance

The court held that plaintiff-county satisfied the UCPA’s jurisdictional requirements, proved a public use and necessity, and showed that the commissioners’ testimony was not relevant to the limited necessity inquiry. The county sought to condemn defendants-property owners’ cottage parcel located within Prairie View County Park after its board passed a resolution stating acquisition was needed to “complete and enhance” the park. The trial court denied defendants’ jurisdictional challenge, quashed subpoenas to individual commissioners, held an evidentiary hearing, and entered judgment for condemnation. On appeal, the court first held that the good-faith offer was not defective because MCL 213.55(1) did not require it to include a plan, and the complaint satisfied MCL 213.55(4) by attaching materials that “show and depict the property to be taken.” The court next held that the county established public use because it offered proof the property would be incorporated into a county park, and “a county park is clearly a public use.” It also held that defendants failed to show fraud, error of law, or abuse of discretion in the county’s necessity determination because the private residence interfered with park management and funding applications, establishing a “present necessity” to acquire the property. Finally, the court held that subpoenas to commissioners were properly quashed because a county board speaks through “official minutes and resolutions,” and individual motives were not probative absent evidence of fraud, error of law, or abuse of discretion. Affirmed.