In City
of Springfield v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank, the City sued Metropolitan Commercial Bank (Bank) seeking an order of demolition of an apartment complex the Bank had a lien filed against.
The
City argued that its building inspector examined the premises and found various structural
issues, such as standing water, missing windows and doors, and a failing
foundation. The City’s building inspector compared the costs
of repair, $2.6 million, to the cost of demolition, $1.2 million. The Bank responded that while the repairs were expensive, the City’s
estimates did not consider the fair market value of the
property after the repairs had been completed. Ultimately, the trial court granted the
City’s motion for summary judgment on its demolition complaint and ordered the property to be demolished.
On appeal, the Bank asserted that the circuit court did not
consider genuine disputed issues between the parties and should not have granted summary judgment to the City. The Appellate Court affirmed certain rulings of the circuit court but reversed on the issue of the feasibility of repairs, sending it back to the circuit court for further proceedings on that issue.
The Appellate Court rejected the Bank’s argument that the City inspector was not qualified to evaluate the safety and disrepair of the buildings, citing several cases where municipal employees, including building
inspectors, have testified in demolition cases.
The Appellate Court also rejected the Bank’s argument that it was prejudiced by deficient notice. Although the Court acknowledged that the City’s notice to the Bank was deficient because it did not specify the building that was the subject of the demolition complaint (and instead referred to the entire complex), the Court determined that the Bank was not prejudiced by the deficient notice since it had participated in the lawsuit and the case would be remanded back to the circuit court.
Finally, the Appellate Court held that there were genuine disputes by the parties as to thevaluation of the property repairs which made the case inappropriate for summary judgment. The Court overturned the order of demolition and sent the case back to the circuit court to allow the Bank to present its contrary repair and valuation evidence.
Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
