Spann-v-Inkster-7-11

8/6/2019 Spann-v-Inkster-7-11

1/21

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

T.C. SPANN BIBLE INSTITUTE : Case No:_________________

An Ecclesiastical Corporation

38788 Meadowlawn :

Wayne, MI 48184

:

Plaintiff, Judge ___________________

:

v. :

CITY OF INKSTER

A Municipal Corporation :

26215 Trowbridge

Inkster, MI 48141 :

Defendant. :

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, by its attorney, makes the following general allegations which apply to each

separate court of the Complaint:

Jurisdiction And Venue

1. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42

U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims by operation of 28 U.S.C. Section

1331 and 1343 and U.S.C. Section 2000e(5).

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID 1


2/21

2

3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) in that the events giving rise to the claim occurred

within the district.

Parties

4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a Michigan ecclesiastical

corporation whose members regularly assemble for religious worship and educational purposes.

5. Defendant is a Michigan municipal corporation.

General Allegations

6. On or about March 1, 2000, Plaintiff acquired a 6.16 acre tract of land known as

2727 Inkster Road, Inkster, Michigan (the Property), wherein constituent components have use

of a church and school of which the remains of the buildings were formerly owned by the

Reverend J. Herbert Hinkle and used by the Cathedral of Faith, also formerly known as Second

Baptist Church of Inkster, since 1973 until 1987 when the buildings were partially destroyed and

damaged as a result of a fire.

7. On or about March 1, 2000, Plaintiff tendered a Memorandum of Land Contract

in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Wayne County.

8. When Plaintiff acquired the Property, it was zoned B-1 under which churches and

schools were permitted uses.

9. On or about July 25, 2000, Plaintiff and Reverend Hinkle (then Pastor of the

Cathedral of Faith) were granted a permit by the City of Inkster to perform all necessary repairs

and construction on the damaged buildings (the Permit).

10. On or about January 5, 2001, Plaintiff and Reverend Hinkle took the Permit to the

City of Inkster Building Department and it was renewed for one year in each of 2002 and 2003.



3/21

3

11. On March 18, 2002, Plaintiff acquired fee simple title to the Property by way of a

Quit Claim Deed.

12. On or about December 3, 2001, the Inkster City Council adopted a Rezoning Plan

as part of Inkster Ordinance No. 792 creating the Town Center District (hereinafter referred to as

the District).

13. Ordinance No. 792 rezoned the Property from a B-1 to a RM-1 excluding

churches and schools as permitted uses.

14. Plaintiff was not afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard despite its legal

ownership interest in the Property.

15. On or about July 27, 2004, while attempting to renew the Permit, Plaintiff was

informed for the first time that a stop order had been placed on the Permit on June 25, 2004 at

the direction of Derek Hull, then Director of Planning and Economic Development for

Defendant.

16. Plaintiff was further informed that in order to renew the Permit, Plaintiff would

have to make its request before the City Council.

17. On or about June 30, 2004, Plaintiff and its contractor attended a meeting of the

Inkster City Council to request renewal of the Permit.

18. The City Council inquired as to why the Permit had not been renewed.

19. Mr. Hull informed the City Council that he had been directed by the then Mayor

Pro Tem, Ernest Hendricks (Hendricks) to put the stop order on the Permit because Hendricks

church, Cathedral of Faith, had paid the taxes on the Property.

20. Hendricks was then a deacon of Cathedral of Faith and presumably believed

(erroneously) that his church had an ownership interest in the Property.



4/21

4

21. Hendricks used his position on the City Council to thwart Plaintiffs efforts to

improve the Property.

22. Hendricks then explained to the City Council that his only concern was that Dr.

Spann, Plaintiffs CEO/President, show that he was authorized to be working on the Property

by showing proof of some ownership interest to the Defendant.

23. Following the City Council meeting, Dr. Spann provided Mr. Hull and the City

Building Department with proof of Plaintiffs ownership interest in the Property.

24. Dr. Spann spoke with Mr. Hull again on August 10, 2004 regarding Plaintiffs

plan to rebuild the aforementioned property for a church and school.

25. Dr. Spann was informed then, for the first time, that the Citys zoning codes were

being revised and that the new code would not permit churches or parochial schools on the

Property.

26. On or about September 17, 2004, while attempting to secure the building as

instructed by Defendants Planning Director, Dawn Walls, a code officer for the City of Inkster

issued Dr. Spann a criminal citation for trespassing and violation of a city permit.

27. Dr. Spann is informed and believes that Ms. Walls was acting at the behest of

Hendricks.

28. On September 28, 2004, Dr. Spann again met with Dr. Hull concerning the

increasing level of harassment and obstruction the Plaintiff was encountering from the City of

Inkster.

29. Mr. Hull then informed Dr. Spann that the Permit would not renewed because it

had been determined by Defendant that the document presented showing ownership interest was

determined to be invalid.



5/21


6/21

6

38. On or about December 29, 2004, then counsel for Plaintiff wrote counsel for

Defendant advising the City of the actions being taken against Plaintiff and requesting that they

cease and desist.

39. Following the letter, counsel for the Plaintiff and Dr. Spann met with the City

Attorney and the City Manager in January 2005.

40. At that meeting, Plaintiff provided the City with copies of its recorded

Memorandum of Land Contract and Quit Claim Deed evidencing Plaintiffs ownership of the

Property.

41. On or about September 8, 2005, the criminal trespassing and criminal permit

violation charges against Dr. Spann were dismissed.

42. On or about September 13, 2007, Plaintiff was approved by National City Bank

for a $550,000 commercial mortgage to renovate the Property for use as a parochial school and

church.

43. On or about April 17, 2007, Plaintiff began receiving notices from the Defendant

purporting to condemn the Property for containing materials that were illegally dumped on the

Property during the period Defendant denied Plaintiff access to the Property to maintain and

secure it.

44. Plaintiff wrote several letters to the Defendant informing it that the Property had

not been abandoned and requesting permission, in writing, to remove any alleged refuse from the

Property.

45. Defendant never responded to any of Plaintiffs letters or requests.



7/21

7

46. Plaintiff also made several requests under the Michigan Freedom of Information

Act for public information in the Defendants possession pertaining to Plaintiff and/or the

Property.

47. Other than requesting and accepting payment of $50.00 allegedly to process the

FOIA request, Defendant never responded to the FOIA requests.

48. Having secured financing to begin construction of the church and parochial

school, Plaintiff retained a general contractor to begin work on the Property.

49. However, the Defendant continued its efforts to thwart Plaintiffs objectives.

50. In September 2007, Plaintiff was informed by the State of Michigan that

Plaintiffs State Building Permit had expired despite prior representations that said permit was in

effect until 2020.

51. Plaintiff and its contractor then met with officials at the State of Michigan

Department of Labor & Economic Growth who advised Plaintiff that the Defendant had

contacted the Department and informed it that the Property was being condemned.

52. Plaintiff was then advised that in order to renew its permit with the State of

Michigan he would now have to obtain several local permits from Wayne County and

Defendant.

53. Plaintiff was able to obtain all the permits needed from Wayne County.

54. On or about October 16, 2007, Plaintiffs application for a permit was denied by

Defendant alleging that neither a church nor a parochial school was permitted in the District.

55. On June 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed an action with this court styled T.C. Spann Bible

Institute v. City of Inkster, Case No.C2-08-CV12368FSC, alleging, inter alia, that Defendant had



8/21


9/21

9

63. On [April] 8, 2010, Dr. Spann hand delivered two (2) copies of the Site Plans to

Ms. Faisons office.

63. Although Dr. Spann had an appointment with Ms. Faison, she refused to meet

with him.

64. Dr. Spann then tried to make another appointment with Ms. Faison in two weeks

to discuss the Site Plans. Ms. Faison refused to schedule another appointment stating that she

did not have time to do so.

65. Given Ms. Faisons response, Dr. Spann then hand delivered two (2) copies of the

Site Plans to Ms. Ann Capela, the City Manager.

66. Defendant has refused to respond to the Site Plans as contemplated in the

Settlement and in Defendants ordinances.

67. Plaintiffs architect completed the Site Plans in full compliance with Defendants

ordinances and has provided the Defendant with any and all information requested by Defendant.

68. Defendant has acted and continues to act in bad faith.

69. On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff email the city manager two copies of the Site Plan

and followed up with a telephone call but the city manger has refused to respond to the e-mail or

return the telephone call.

70. Plaintiff has incurred substantial economic losses including the loss of construction

financing, payments made to its architect and various other and substantial payments made to

contractors. In addition, Plaintiff has lost yet another opportunity to begin construction during

Michigans limited building season.

71. Plaintiff currently meets in a rented space in another local church for religious

worship and instruction.



10/21

10

COUNT I

Violations of Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act

42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. (Equal Protection)

72. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 70 as if fully restated herein.

73. Defendant has in force a zoning code that divides the city of Inkster into 11

zoning districts. Churches are permitted, subject to Special Conditions, in the following zones:

R-1A, B, C, RM and RM-1.

74. In addition to residences, the following uses are allowed in the same zoning

districts as churches without being subject to Special Conditions

Child/Adult Foster Care (6 or less)Public LibrariesPublic ParksPublic Recreation FacilitiesCemeteriesCrafts and Fine Arts (instruction)

75. The following uses, in addition to churches, are allowed in the R zoning

districts subject to special conditions:

Child/Adult Foster Care (7 or less)Assisted Living Facilities/Elderly Housing (RM/, RM-1)Nursing and Convalescent Homes (RM, RM-1)Private Noncommercial Recreation CentersInstitutional Community Recreation CentersGolf Courses (R-1)Non Profit Public, Parochial and Private Elementary, Intermediate or High schoolsColleges, Universities and Institutions of Higher Learning, Public and Private NurserySchools, Day Nurseries, and Child/Adult Care Centers

76. None of those uses set forth in the preceding paragraphs are subject to the same

Special Conditions as churches/parochial schools, including but not limited to the following:

minimum lot area of 2 acres, and prohibition against location of a church within 1,000 feet of

another church facility.

77. Plaintiff owns 6.16 acres of land.



11/21

11

78. The Inkster Code effectively prohibits Plaintiff and any other religious

organization from locating their church and parochial school in Inkster unless such organization

meets a series of burdensome Special Conditions, which apply only to churches and parochial

schools.

79. Secular organizations such as private clubs, fraternal organizations and lodge

halls are free to locate in any one of three districts: B-2, B-3 and M-1. They are not subject to

Special Conditions.

80. Under the current Inkster Code, there is no property available in the City of

Inkster which can be used for church and parochial school purposes without obtaining a variance

or correcting environmental contamination conditions.

81. Churches may only be potentially located in the cities residential zoning district

and then only after obtaining special permission, in the form of a variance, from city officials.

82. Plaintiffs inability to use the building at 2727 Inkster Road as a church and

parochial school, or construct a new church building on the premises, or to obtain property for a

church in any of the business districts, burdens Plaintiffs exercise of religion by making difficult

or impossible ministries, which are essential to the religious beliefs and exercises of the

organization and its members: weekly assembly of the congregation for worship; weekly

preaching, including speech relating to personal morality and God; prayer meetings; pastoral

counseling; bible studies; social gatherings for church members; religious charitable and social

outreach to members of the community; and evangelizing.

83. By being forced to meet in rental facilities, the Plaintiff experiences the following

hindrances or disruptions of its religious ministries; the congregations weekly services; prayer

meetings; outreach activities and social gatherings must be scheduled only when space is not in



12/21

12

use by the lessor; the size of the assembly for worship and other ministries is limited by the size

of the rented property; service projects at the rented property are not feasible; expressions of

faith through decoration of the place of worship are not feasible; funds must be diverted from the

congregations religious and charitable purposes to pay for the rental property.

84. Section 2(b)(1) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000, Section cc(b)(1), prohibits Defendant from treating a religious

organization less favorably than a secular organization.

85. Inksters Code excludes religious organizations from zoning districts open to non-

religious member organizations, and limits religious institutions to residential zoning districts

subject to Special Conditions not applicable to other uses within said districts.

86. Thus, Defendant imposes and implements a land use regulation which treats

Plaintiff less favorably than non-religious assemblies/institutions in violation of RLUIPA.

87. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00).

COUNT II

Violations of Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act

42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. (Exclusion)

88. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86 as if fully rewritten herein.

89. Section 2(b)(3) of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc (b)(3) prohibits Defendant

from excluding religious organizations from its limits:

(3) Exclusion and limitsNo government shall impose a land use regulation that:

(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction, or(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions or structures,within a jurisdiction.



13/21

13

90. Not one classification in Inksters Code permits use by religious organizations

except subject to unreasonable Special Conditions or by variance.

91. Thus, Defendant totally excludes and/or unreasonably limits religious assemblies

within its jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT III

Denial of Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

93. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 though 91 as if fully rewritten herein.

94. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the Defendant from treating persons

unequally on the basis of their religious beliefs.

94. The Inkster Code prevents Dr. Spann and Plaintiffs members from using the

Property as a church and parochial school.

95. The Inkster Code explicitly and freely permits all members of non-religious

private clubs, fraternal organizations and lodge halls to locate and function within the city

without being subject to any special conditions. Religious organizations are restricted to the

district and residential districts may only locate therein subject to special conditions.

96. Within the district and residential districts to which religious organizations are

restricted, they are subjected to special conditions not applicable to the other uses permitted in

those districts.

97. For purposes of land use regulations, a wide variety of secular membership

organizations, as well as other secular uses, are similarly situated and not distinguishable from



14/21

14

parochial schools and religious organizations. Any differences in the activities of religious and

non-religious organizations are not legally cognizable for purposes of government

licensing/zoning.

98. Because there is neither a compelling governmental interest not rational basis for

the Inkster Code to permit parochial schools or non-religious membership organizations

unconditional use of their properties, or to subject religious organizations to special conditions

not applicable to non-religious organizations, Inksters Code denies Plaintiff and its members the

Fourteenth Amendments guarantee of equal protection.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT IV

First Amendment (Exclusion)

100. Plaintiff herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 99 as if fully rewritten herein.

101. The lack of any zone in which Plaintiff or other newly arrived or newly formed

churches may locate, i.e., the total exclusion of churches from Defendant except by permission

of the City by way of a variance, infringes on Plaintiffs free exercise of religion.

102. The zoning exclusions and special conditions as referenced herein are not in

furtherance of any compelling governmental interest and have no rational basis.

103. The zoning exclusions and special conditions as referenced herein are not

narrowly tailored to achieve Defendants governmental interests.

104. Inability to use the Property or to obtain a suitable location elsewhere severely

limits the churchs worship and other religious and charitable activities.



15/21

15

105. Plaintiffs inability to use its Property has caused it substantial economic losses

that interferes with its ability to carry out its religious mission.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT V

Violation of Right to Freedom of Speech Under the First Amendment

Of the United States Constitution


108. Plaintiff engages in speech protected under the free speech clause of the First

Amendment through prayer, preaching, singing, evangelism and teaching.

109. Defendants zoning restrictions, classifications and conditions regarding churches

and religious organizations burden and infringe upon Plaintiffs religious speech expression.

110. Defendants exclusion of churches and imposition of special conditions not

applicable to non-religious organizations is a content based restriction on Plaintiffs speech and,

thus, violates Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT VI

Inverse Condemnation De Facto Taking


113. Defendant has interfered with Plaintiffs use of the Property in order to further

and promote the Defendants own plans to acquire the Property for itself or to further Hendricks

desire that the Property be acquired by the Cathedral of Faith.



16/21

16

114. Defendants interference with the use of the Property has interfered with

Plaintiffs property rights to such an extent that Defendant has taken the Property.

115. As a result of Defendants actions in interfering with the use of the Property,

Defendant has inversely condemned the Property.

116. Defendant may not take the Property without just compensation.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT VII

Inverse Condemnation Regulatory Taking


119. As a government agency, Defendant may be liable for taking private property by

overburdening the property with regulations.

120. Defendant has taken the Property through its zoning and permit regulations

because those regulations do not further a legitimate government interest.

121. Defendants zoning and permit regulations deprive Plaintiff of economically

viable use of the Property, considering: the character of Defendants actions; the economic

effect of Defendants zoning and permit regulations on the Property; and the extent by which the

zoning and permit regulations have interfered with distinct economic backed expectations.

122. The effect of Inksters Code and permit regulations have been to deprive Plaintiff

of the free use and enjoyment of its property.



17/21

17



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT VIII

Procedural Due Process Under Michigan Constitution

124. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 123 as if fully rewritten herein.

125. Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution states:

No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.

125. Procedural due process required Defendant to give Plaintiff notice and an

opportunity to be heard before taking its property.

126. Plaintiff was deprived of its rights regarding the Property without notice and

without the opportunity for a hearing by, among other things, Defendant:

a. Adopting and enforcing the current Town Center District without notice tothe affected property owners or tenants of the consequences of the rezonedTown Center District.

b. Imposing a 1000 foot restriction between churches in any zone;c. Requiring special permits and variances for a church to be located in any

zone;d. Excluding churches from zoning districts open to non-religious member

organizations.

127. The acts or omissions of Defendant were intentional.

128. The acts or omissions of Defendant were the proximate cause of the deprivation

of Plaintiffs procedural due process rights protected by the Michigan Constitution.



($1,500,000.00).



18/21

18

COUNT IX

Substantive Due Process Under Michigan Constitution




132. Substantive due process prohibits the deliberate and arbitrary use of governmental

power.

133. Defendants actions toward Plaintiff were arbitrary and unreasonable, and either

failed to advance a legitimate government interest or were an unreasonable means of advancing a

legitimate government interest.



of Plaintiffs substantive due process rights protected by the Michigan Constitution.



($1,500,000.00).

COUNT X

Equal Protection under Michigan Constitution




139. Defendants actions toward Plaintiff have denied Plaintiff equal protection

of the laws.



19/21

19

140. Plaintiff has been treated less favorably by Defendant than other property

owners.

141. Other properties have been treated more favorably because Hendricks

used his position to further the interests of the Cathedral of Faith to the detriment of

Plaintiff.

142. Other properties have been treated more favorably because Defendant has

not designated those properties for taking as part of the District.



of Plaintiffs equal protection rights protected by the Michigan Constitution.



($1,500,000.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court would enter judgmnent in favor of

Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows:

(a)As to Count I, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, butbeing not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(b) As to Count II, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00).



20/21

20

(c) As to Count III, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(d) As to Count IV, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(e) As to Count V, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(f) As to Count VI, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(g) As to Count VII, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(h)As to Count VIII, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(i) As to Count IX, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);



21/21

(j) As to Count X, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

($1,500,000.00);

(k)An award of damages in the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costsincurred by Plaintiff in this matter; and

(l) Such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, T.C. Spann Bible Institute hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues triable

by jury in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Charles A. McKinney_________Charles A. McKinney (0039214)LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES MCKINNEY

137 N. Main Street, Suite 618Dayton, OH 45402PH: 937.461.9000FX: [email protected] for Plaintiffs,T.C. Spann Bible Institute


Documents

Spann-v-Inkster-7-11