A disagreement that has existed for over a year and wound up in court between the Village of Climax and the property owner at 110 South Main Street in the Village of Climax, appears to be on a path towards a settlement.
The Climax Village Council approved a settlement agreement with Murat Bates, the owner of 110 South Main Street, by a 5-2 vote (Joline Chaney and Janet Sutherland voted no) at its regular meeting March 3.
Laura A. Kane, of Hilger Hammond Law Firm, Grand Rapids, represents Bates. She, along with Village of Climax attorney Craig Rolfe attended the meeting March 3.
Rolfe offered background information about the case and his recommendation to the Council.
Climax Village Council President Bill Lewis said at the November 4, 2025 village council meeting the $10,675 ($25 per day) for permit noncompliance through a court order, was placed on the property at 110 South Main Street as a lien just a short time before new council members entered office in November, 2024.
Rolfe said he shared confidential attorney-client communication that included a proposed settlement agreement document along with a discharge and release document, with Lewis March 2. He requested the communication be sent to council members to review.
Rolfe said there were items in the case some council members, along with himself, may want to discuss in closed session.
He told the Council and audience Bates, through communication with his attorney, is contemplating his legal rights to pursue legal action against the village, and or, present or past village officials, “arising from what he believes to be a lien document, a lien that was recorded on his property in November, 2024 by the former Village attorney at the direction of the former Village President.”
Former Climax Village President David Miller said no lien was filed when asked after the meeting for a comment.
A Notice of municipal conditions and pending lien document was notarized November 18, 2024 by former Village Attorney Roxanne C. Seeber, and recorded at the Kalamazoo County Register of Deeds December 6, 2024.
Rolfe also informed the Council communication from Kane refers to some potential open meetings act issues involving prior councils.
Rolfe pointed out a closed session meeting to discus the issue could not take place unless the Council approved a motion to move into closed session by a two-thirds vote (five of seven votes would be needed).
Council member Denise Pyle felt because the situation has been ongoing and there have been accusations that there have been “back door dealings”, it was important to have the discussion in open session.
Rolfe pointed out to the Council a portion of the settlement agreement included Bates agreeing to not take any legal action arising from specifically the lien issue. However Rolfe said the drafted document in the settlement agreement that Bates would not take legal action against the Village of Climax, “and/or its past officials” was not acceptable to Bates.
He said Bates would not agree with the settlement agreement without the verbiage “would not take legal action against the Village of Climax, and/or its past officials,” being deleted.
Rolfe said Bates would agree to a revised settlement agreement that would provide that Bates would not take any legal action of any kind against the Village of Climax relating to the lien issue.
However Rolfe adds Bates would have the right to “hypothetically and potentially take some sort of action against individual officials of the village, past or present.”
The Village attorney explained if that scenario played out and Bates pursued litigation against a present village official as a defendant, the Council would need to contact the village insurer to determine if the village insurer had a legal obligation to defend that specific type of claim. If the Village insurer was obligated to defend the current village official, Rolfe would not be obligated to defend the present village official and the village insurer would appoint an attorney.
“If there were some sort of resolution to that hypothetical claim that involved a monetary obligation of some sort on the part of that current village official, there may, or may not be, insurer responsibility and liability to cover that monetary obligation,” said Rolfe.
Rolfe said none of the court orders in the case authorized the village or any official of the village, to impose a municipal lien on the subject’s property pertaining to unpaid fines that the court had ordered being imposed against Mr. Bates.”
“For me, it was going to in effect, impose as a tool to potentially collect on the court ordered fines by foreclosing on the lien, enforcing the lien on the subject real property.
None of the Court Orders authorized that action. And I was not able to locate, nor am I otherwise aware of any other legal authority for the village to have unilaterally imposed such a lien at that time on this property,” said Rolfe.
Kane also felt the Village attorney was correct advising the Council that the Village did not follow through with the lien process properly.
“The lien was not ordered by the court nor was it voted on at an open meeting,” said Kane.
When asked about Bates’ statement that the lien wasn’t voted on at an open meeting, Miller replied, “no lien was filed.”
Rolfe added based on the information he provided, he hoped the Council would allow him to record a discharge and release document of the lien even if it wasn’t within the context of the agreement.
The Council authorized Rolfe to approve the settlement agreement with the revised verbiage in the 5-2 vote.
Rolfe said Kane indicated Bates would sign the revised settlement agreement with the deleted verbiage: “and/or its past/present officials.”
The settlement agreement states that Bates will not take any legal action against the Village of Climax.
Rolfe said Kane provided to him a copy of the document that was recorded.
Rolfe explained the document was executed November 18, 2024, the last day the prior administration was in office, but was not recorded that day. He thought the document was recorded sometime in December.
Council member Joline Chaney questioned how the council could go against a judge’s court order.
Rolfe said the court order authorized daily fines for contempt for disregarding a prior order. Rolfe said there were three payments early in the case he understood were already paid to the Village.
The attorney said the order does not clearly indicate who the court imposed the contempt fines to benefit.
He adds the Council could ask for clarity from the court.
He adds the case is administratively closed, a final order has been entered and the appeal period has passed.
However Rolfe said the Village could pursue the fines the Village claims are due and unpaid.
He said the Village would have to file another contempt motion with the court.
The Village attorney said from his perspective, the court awarded the daily fines from previous failure to comply with a prior order relating to construction code compliance.
He said it would be up to the village to decide whether to take additional legal action pertaining to a prior court order that is not yet fulfilled and seek further relief for the non-compliance.
Village Council member Denise Pyle asked the attorney if some procedures by the village to pursue the fines weren’t followed properly and if there was some liability.
Rolfe said he would have to refer back to the documents that came to him when he was hired as the new village attorney along with current documents he obtained as the new attorney to make a determination.
He adds the Village’s only out of pocket expense on the matter so far are attorney fees.
He said the Council may end up spending more money then it already has chasing more money.
Rolfe said based on his communication with Kane, if the Village did pursue the money the Village claimed is due based on the court order fines, Bates could dispute that, creating an adversarial environment which he said tends to be costly.
He adds even if the Village did direct him to pursue the unpaid fines, he would file a motion for contempt requesting further relief, asking the court to clarify if any relief dollars would go to the court or village. He said the court could determine the fine money should go to the court, meaning the Village could wind up spending more money without receiving any of the fine money.
He said he could add any relief for the Village’s legal fees be added to the judgment. However he felt there is a chance, the court probably would not require Bates, even if he is found to be in contempt, to necessarily reimburse the Village for legal fees.
Kane would not comment whether Bates could attempt to get the money back he has already paid to the Village.
“As a council member, I can not justify spending taxpayer funds on something that there’s no guarantee. And all it’s going to do is continue to fester within this community,” said Pyle.
Pyle, with a second from Carolyn Kelly, made a motion to approve the proposed settlement agreement provided by the attorney with the deletion of the verbiage “and/or as present/past officials”, authorizing the village president and attorney to execute the document with the amended changes.
Rolfe said with the approved Council motion the matter would be done between the Village and Bates as soon as Bates signs the agreement.
Soon after the council approved the settlement agreement during citizen time on the agenda, former Village President David Miller said, “I’ve just never heard such a load of crap that has come from that table. And every one of you council members who voted for this, should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Request To Use Village Streets For Memorial Day Parade Approved
The Council unanimously approved a request from Henry Sowles representing Climax-Scotts American Legion Post #465 to use the village streets for the Legion sponsored Memorial Day parade.
Sowles said the route will remain the same. The parade, which begins at 10 a.m. Memorial Day, starts at the local Legion Post on South Main Street. The parade route will continue north to the Village Park where a ceremony will be held, then continue down Cherry Street to Church Street, to Hancock and back to the Legion.
Sowles said the only change is a brief ceremony immediately following the parade will take place at Prairie Home Cemetery instead of later in the day that was the case last year.
He hopes the parade activity on the streets will be cleared by 11:30 a.m. - noon.
Permit Procedure Explained By SafeBuilt Officials
Lauren Veri, the account manager for SafeBuilt, which handles building permits, zoning and ordinance services for the Village, and Reed Vaughn, Safebuilt Code Enforcement Officer for the area, explained building permit procedures.
Veri said only a contractor, not the homeowner, can call SafeBuilt with questions about a permit because the homeowner is not the person who obtained the permit to complete work at a location.
She adds legally, the permit is owned by the person that pulls the permit. She said if someone other then the contractor attempts to alter or request information about a legal document they do not own, it presents a liability issue.
Vaughn said mechanical and electrical permits have to be pulled by a licensed contractor.
Lauren adds SafeBuilt can provide examples when a property owner can pull a permit on their own as well as when a permit is required to be pulled by a licensed contractor.
In other items covered at the March 3 meeting:
• Department of Public Works Manager T.J. Gibson said water samples and pumpage reports for the much of March have been completed.
Gibson said the process to replace old street signs with new street signs has started.
The DPW Manager adds 2026 sample requirements for PFAS, nitrogen and nitrate has started.
The DPW staff has started reading water meters early for input into the Village’s new BS&A system.
Gibson said the DPW staff has started to patch pot holes.
• The Council approved budget amendments to balance the current budget.
Clerk Linda Coburn said some of the process will involve moving money from one category that has extra money, into another category.
She explained adding a Planning Commission in the current fiscal year that was not in the original budget, created extra expense.
Repairs from an emergency break that occurred from a power outage in the well field December 10, also created an unexpected large expense.
Coburn said the council already anticipated pulling money from the water fund and general fund, fund balances, but the addition of the Planning Commission and unexpected large repair cost to the water system will require more money be pulled then expected.
• Ordinance/Zoning/Planning & Development Chairperson Carolyn Kelly said of the three ordinance violations the council has been working on, one has been taken care of, another has been partially cleaned up and a third has made a vast improvement.
She said there are two other locations she will meet with her committee to review.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
