After the flood: Former tenants of Ann Arbor apartment complex file lawsuit against McKinley Inc.
The Park Place Apartments experienced heavy flooding after the March 15 storm.
Photo courtesy of Ainsley Schlinghoff
Editor's note: This story has been corrected to reflect that Ryan Stock, one of the plaintiffs in the case, did not have renters insurance.
Three former tenants of the Park Place Apartments in Ann Arbor filed a lawsuit against owner McKinley Inc. for negligence in the aftermath of the flooding following the March 15 storm that destroyed property and took the life of a plaintiff’s dog.
The suit claims McKinley didn’t discuss the apartment’s history of flooding with plaintiffs Ryan Stock, his fianceé Shilpa Jhobalia and their neighbor, Laura Johnson, before they moved in.
The storm that touched down as a tornado in Dexter also blew through Ann Arbor, dumping copious amounts of water in the area of Pauline and Stadium boulevards. The plaintiffs lived in two of the eight ground-floor apartments, where floodwater reached levels of four feet deep.
Stock remembers wading through the water, which was a mixture of mud and feces, trying to salvage the remains of his and his fianceé's belongings.
“Everything was ruined,” Stock said. “It was the nastiest experience ever.”
Furniture, textbooks, pots and pans were all destroyed, said Stock, a University of Michigan graduate student in environmental policy. Pictures, passports and birth certificates also were wrecked. He and Jhobalia were planning their wedding, and the flood claimed many of the items related to that, too.
Johnson and her boyfriend, Evan George, are still reeling from the loss of their Lab mix, Lola, who was stuck in a crate and drowned as flood waters rose in the apartment that day.
“This is an issue of safety,” Johnson wrote AnnArbor.com in an email. “The amount of water that entered the apartment in less than 45 minutes was staggering. It was past Evan’s waist when he entered the apartment to try to save Lola. The furniture was floating and obstructing windows and doors. The transformer behind the building began to float away and smolder.”
Evan George tried saving Lola from the apartment after the storm, but the dog drowned in her crate.
Photo courtesy of Laura Johnson
Stock said he did not have renters insurance, but that even if he did, it would not have covered the damages. After the flood, he contacted University of Michigan Student Legal Services. The trio are currently being represented by Gayle Rosen, a staff attorney there.
The lawsuit, filed in the Washtenaw County Trial Court on Aug. 10, claims the amount of damage was more than $25,000. It charges McKinley with one count each of negligence, gross negligence, a break of implied warranty of habitability, breach of lease agreement, a violation of the Michigan Consumers Protection Act and fraudulent failure to disclose.
The suit claims McKinley willingly rented out the eight apartments even though the company knew the units would flood with a major rainfall.
“(The defendant) knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the plaintiff’s units would flood following a rain storm,” the suit says.
McKinley Inc. did not want to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by AnnArbor.com.
Despite their respective losses, Stock and Johnson both said their priority in filing the lawsuit was to make sure no one is allowed to live in the apartments anymore. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and that the units be declared unfit for occupancy, plus cost and attorney fees, according to court records.
“I certainly never would have rented that apartment if I was aware of the sort of flooding other tenants have reported,” Johnson wrote. “The sole reason I chose that place was for Lola. I wanted her to have easy access to be outside.”
Johnson wanted to point out that the citywide discussion on flooding has centered on assisting private homeowners mostly on the west side of Ann Arbor in correcting sewage back-ups. The city of Ann Arbor has, in fact, recently launched a citywide analysis in response to some of the neighborhood flooding following that March storm.
Johnson, however, thinks renters are being “overlooked” and wants to make sure no one has a similar experience to hers.
“We want to guarantee this doesn’t happen to anyone ever again,” Stock said.
The suit was assigned to Judge David Swartz’s courtroom. There are no hearings yet on the dockets in the case.
John Counts covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at johncounts@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
lindsay
Wed, Sep 19, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.
The tenants have every right to take action as a result of the property owner's negligence. We all know property managers want to maximize profit and minimize the amount of money they put into their rentals and in this case did so to the detriment of their tenants. If these tenants were aware of the risk of flooding in a serious storm, they could have at least taken preventive measures like taking the dog, valuables etc out of the units.
wolverineps
Sun, Sep 16, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.
I know Ryan and Shilpa quite well and I can ensure you that it is not money that they are after here. These apartments have suffered from flooding in the past and McKinley made no effort to make this know to them or other tenants when they signed their lease. At the very least, they should be required to do this. For the sake of future tenants, I hope that McKinley is held accountable.
Renata Coco
Sun, Sep 16, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
Oh, gosh, that poor dog and her poor owners :( Heartbreaking. I hope landlords take note and fix the sewage problem for future tenants (and their pets)!
Jay Thomas
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
McKinley should tell people about the problem (assuming they didn't).
Andrea
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.
The management at this complex has to be one of the worst for all of the McKinley properties. As a resident I really hoped things would improve with the attention focused on the property after the flood. Not the case at all. Poorly run to say the least.
jns131
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 5:30 p.m.
i really hope these people win this case. McKinley is in denial and these people lost something very dear to them. McKinley should have had fore site to this problem before it happened. Good luck adopting and with the wedding. You folks have been thru enough.
Ron Granger
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
Let's save the "acts of god" for church and TV. This is a business relationship and one side did not meet their obligations. Just as "act of god" is not an excuse for rent non-payment, it is not an excuse in this situation. Let's save the "acts of god" for church and TV.
DHOWSER98
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
If the plaintiffs receive a cash award in the verdict, do you suppose I can sue the plaintiffs to get back the in-kind donation I made (via McKinley) to help cover their losses? Insurance and the courts aren't meant to be a windfall, but rather a way of making one "whole" again. If the goal is to declare the units unfit for residence, then just sue for that. Otherwise, "unspecified damages" sounds like double-dipping to me, and I want my donation back.
Robert Granville
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.
Anyone who has lived in a McKinley property knows how shady they are. I used to live in 2074 apt TB of these same apartments that flooded. I was never warned about the flooding risk either. Those of you that seem to foolishly believe this was simply "an act of god" should drive by and take a look for yourself. The whole building is on a hill. If proper drainage was part of the construction plan, it would literally be impossible for the building to flood. All the water should've rolled down hill to Pauline.
John Counts
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3 p.m.
I've updated this story with two details some readers seem to have questions about. The first of which has to do with renters insurance. Ryan Stock, one of the plaintiffs, said he had renters insurance, but it did not cover the damages. The second question has to do with the plaintiffs' attorney. The three are being represented by Gayle Rosen, a staff attorney with University of Michigan's Student Legal Services. I hope this helps clear some things up.
user84
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:57 p.m.
I'm sure there is a lot more to this story that lead to a lawsuit other than excessive rain and an "act of God" thunderstorm. I also lived in this apartment complex and experienced flooding. For me though, it happened in the middle of the drought this summer, no rain. I was on vacation and came home to find standing water in my entire apartment. Since I had been out of town, a lot of my stuff had already started to mold and couldn't be salvaged. The water continued to leak into my apartment for two more days and I was never really given a clear explanation for where it came from. McKinley was terrible to deal with during the entire ordeal, forcing me to either sign a new lease with them, or vacate my apartment all within less than a week. I wasn't compensated for any of the cost associated with the move, including my increased DTE bill, which sourced the power for all the water removal equipment. I can't speak for other McKinley properties, but the Park Place office is very poorly run, and difficult to deal with when you need them the most. I think its safe to say that the plaintiffs in this case have been through much more than the article states.
MRunner73
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.
Very unfortunate. The staffing in these offices are very poor and lack experience in dealing with these complex issues. Another sad fact is that you would have hire your own attorney to resolve the problem you came home to. Poor office staffing is a problem throught this city by these property owners. Good luck.
chapmaja
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.
My understanding of the law is that if you are a property owner, and you know there is a potential problem with flooding you are required to fix the problem or notify the potential tennants of the potential. In this case it appears that the property owner did neither of these, therefore they can be found liable for the damages. This is not a simple ACT OF GOD case if the owner of the property knew that said act could damage or destroy a persons propety and failed to correct or report it to the tennants of said property. The key to this case will be what the owners knew about the property and if they knew and failed to report this issue. If they knew that there was a potential for the units to flood they should have informed potential tennants of the hazard. If the units had no history of flooding (which it appears is not the case), then the Act of God defense is allowable. The simple fact is that if you are an owner of a property that has a known potential to flood during heavy rain and you do or say nothing, you are neglecting your responsibility.
Machine
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
I would be curious to know the identity of the attorney that filed this suit because he/she doesn't seem to be keeping up with Michigan law. The Michigan Consumer Protection Act was gutted by the Michigan Supreme Court back in 1999. The Supreme Court in its wisdom decided that the MCPA didn't apply to any "regulated business." Since most businesses are regulated in some fashion (licensing, permits, etc.), the MCPA is enforceable in very few circumstances. For more information, there is an article in the August 2012 issue of the Michigan Bar Journal.
Machine
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
Additional articles on the MCPA here: http://www.michbar.org/consumer/articles.cfm. Michigan Supreme Court has indicated any industry or business that is in ANY WAY regulated by the state is exempt from liability. The rental housing industry is heavily regulated.
craigjjs
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Is there case law holding that the leasing of apartments is a "regulated business" for the purposes of the MCPA? From what I have read, the coverage is a bit hit and miss. Your suggested outcome might be true, but I see no reason why the attorney should not pursue the theory absent conclusive authority to the contrary. It is certainly no reason to want to name and shame a lawyer because he/she does not agree with your superficial reading of the law.
a2roots
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
Some have mentioned the tenants should have purchased renters insurance. Can someone out there clarify if renters insurance would cover this. I do not think it would. If this were a single family dwelling I am also curious if it would have been covered. I know homeowners insurance will not cover sewer backups, which this wasn't, unless the city's pumping station is part of the problem. Homeowners will only cover damage from water that comes down(broken pipe) and not up like a sewer back up. For a sewer back up issue you have to take it up with the city. As stated in an earlier post the city is now pretty much held harmless for sewer back ups.
MRunner73
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
This appears to be an urban drainage issue. If there is no stream nearby that flooded, then the flooding resulted in a low lying arera where water pooled. Proper storm drainage is an issue and that is a city matter. Renters would need to be advised to get flood insurance coverage, if possible. Sewage back ups can occur when there is an excessivle amout of rain falling over a given period of time. It is called run-off. Hopefully, a reassessment can result in eliminating this problem for those who are living at Park Place.
a2roots
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
@craigjjs...correct you are. FEMA just revised their maps. The feds run the flood insurance program. You must be within a FEMA flood zone in order to purchase flood insurance. It is very expensive. There are several flood zones in Ann Arbor but I am pretty sure the area in question is not within one.
craigjjs
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
a2roots is right. Renters and homeowners policies exclude coverage for flooding. There is a complex government subsidized program that is not available in all areas.
a2roots
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
Unless you are in a FEMA flood zone you cannot get flood insurance.
Matt
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
Very minor point here, but I believe the storms were on March 15, 2012. Right?
John Counts
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
Thanks. The typo in the caption has been corrected.
Matt
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
...as the picture at the top says "March 14".
LXIX
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.
Act of GOD? How about those acts of City Council unable to deal with an archaic sewer/water infrastructure yet still gush all over their glitzy bubble pops? Perhaps they figure building even more complexes further up the hill.will just flush out that little density problem below.. McKinnely innocent? When you buy a house or car what recourse is there if the seller fails to provide you with critical information leading to a great loss in value? Just cry at the wall? Because this happened once before shame Mckinnely is SOL. DOG killers can do time, too.
Arborcomment
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 11:59 p.m.
Djacks and Johnny, then explain this... Selected a dog from the shelter, one day before it was to be put down. Reason: "destructive if left alone". Decided to take the chance, and give him another chance at life. He was a little over one year old, and an address search indicated he was in an apartment. Took him home consulted a behaviorist, got cage. Caged for about six months, and he then used the cage for the rest of his life (15 more years), WITH THE CAGE DOOR OPEN as his bed at night and resting during the day while we were at work. Get a clue fellows.
djacks24
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.
"Crating is not only appropriate, but a positive experience for some dogs." I'm sure that's the bahaviorists opinion and not the dogs. This one didn't end up positive, for sure!
craigjjs
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
Johnnya2's rant against crating animals is at odds with the opinions of nearly all animal behaviorists. Crating is not only appropriate, but a positive experience for some dogs. Like most things, it can be abused, but everyone who crates a dog is not "dog killer". By the way, most, if not all, renters insurance policy exclude coverage for flooding damages.
Brad
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
"No dog chooses to be trapped in a cage while it's flooding" Brilliant!
johnnya2
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
The dog killers are the people who decided it was acceptable to leave her in a cage unable to protect herself in this situation. The ONLY reason people cage their dogs is for THEM, not for the dog. Anybody who tells you different is a liar. No dog chooses to be trapped in a cage when it is flooding, the renters made this choice to protect their belongings from the dog either pooping or peeing on the floor or stop her from chewing things. I And no, you have the ability in this world to buy RENTERS INSURANCE. It is what it is there for. Many landlords require you to have it. All mortgage companies require you have homeowners insurance on a house. if you choose to 'self insure" you took that risk
Allison Camara
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
If these apartments had ever flooded even a little 3 inch flood because of rain that should be disclosed and it should be fixed by the property owner, I had a friend who lived in The Villas, also a McKinley apartment complex, flooding happens every time it rained in front of her sliding glass door. Yes they had drains near the flooding area but the drains are 1 ft above the ground by the time the water gets to that stage it would be too late. She has moved out of the apartment but things like that should be told to potential renters.
music to my ear
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
yes it was a act of mother nature, even though I have,a brat dog I was always afraid of putting her in a pen ,so I never grasp that ideal. a lot of dog ,owners do it on a daily basis and I feel that is their business but as they found out anything could and did happen. I am sorry about your pet. but laws on pet loss are not really favored in Mi. I do remember there was a lot of rain that day.having read the story,
Mike
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Sounds like a greedy lawyer and clients looking for an easy check hoping for a settlement from McKinley. They'll most likely get one and all of you renters will just have to pay a little more. Once landlords become responsible for acts of god and tornadoes there won't be any end to suits like this. McKinley will now have to give every tenant at every building a handout explaining the dangers of being alive. You could get hit by a car in their parking lot, a toranado could hit your building, hail could fall from the sky and dent your car, someone could mug you in the parking lot or steal your car......where does it end?
craigjjs
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
No one is claiming that this landlord is responsible for acts of god, etc. They are claiming that the landlord knew of a flooding history for those units and failed to disclose it to the tenants. Don't let facts interfere with a mindless rant.
Linda Peck
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
If the apartments were known to flood, they should not have been rented out. That is an awful tragedy for the young couple to lose their dog in such a helpless way. My niece rented a below grade level apartment and I warned her on moving in the smell indicated it had moisture there for a long time. She moved in anyway, but did not stay long. Mold and mildew are usually apparent in such a place, but often young people are not aware of its presentation and its danger, for flood and for health. Good luck to these young people in their lawsuit.
GP
Tue, Sep 11, 2012 : 1:29 a.m.
Linda, you always have very kind and thoughtful comments.
Geoff CUlbertson
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
This will not be an easy one to win but good luck. My experience with McKinley was not a good one. I have no love loss for them and would never rent a property from them again. I did rent one of the basement units in Park Place as well but never had any type of flooding issues. I feel for the loss of their dog. I think about it everytime I drive by that corner..
buildergirl
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
Never live in a basement unit or in the lowest laying areas. Very sorry about the dog, poor thing.
lindor
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Good luck in Swartz's court room, little to no chance of prevailing.
a2roots
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.
Unfortunately you are suing the wrong entity. Mother nature dumped on us and I doubt McKinley or mother nature can be held responsible. However, it may be worth looking at whether or not the city was negligent. Not sure if there is a pumping station near you but if it failed and impacted the problem you have a slim chance of going to the city's insurance board. Rules were changed several years ago to protect the city and I am not sure if this board still exists but if it does it is worth a try.
justcurious
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
My question as well. What part does the city play in this?
zags
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.
The article doesn't mention if they were compensated by McKinley for their loss. Also, it doesn't mention if they had renters insurance, which might have covered the loss of their personal belongings. Furthermore, most leases contain an "Act of God" clause that simply states that the landlord can not be held liable for damages caused by acts of nature such as tornadoes, hurricanes and......20 year floods. Sorry for your loss, but quite frankly, I'm not seeing this lawsuit going very far.
a2miguy
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
@djacks24 - Apologize to zags. Now. The article did not previously answer the renters insurance question. The author updated it to include that info, as evidence by his post at 11:00am (see below)...nearly 3 hours after zags posted. If you spend so much time copying and pasting just to show others up that you're now tired of it, I would suggest you're in need of counseling or at least something better to do with your time.
djacks24
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.
Yeah, it actually did mention about renters insurance. Re-read the article. I'm tired of copying and pasting paragraphs for people that fail to pay attention.
craigjjs
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
Most renters insurance policies do not cover flood damages. The renters claim there is a history of flooding in these apartments that was not disclosed to them. If that is true, it is not a 20 year flood.
Chase Ingersoll
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 11:48 a.m.
John: Can you explain the nexus if any, between this flooding and flooding homeowners experience in other parts of the city and the drainage repairs or improvements that neighborhoods have been requesting? Also, I don't think that a contractor would have built or an insurance company would have insured such a building without city inspectors authorizing the construction and the occupation of these units. Accordingly, has the capability of the drainage system changed since the construction, or has other construction in the area caused increased run-off? Engineers and those with information on these issues, please contribute your comments.
Shi Schultz
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 11:47 a.m.
Yes, this is an upsetting situation. But do people not understand that's things like this happen? It's MOTHER NATURE! How many times in the last, let's say 10 years, has that area flooded to that degree? I would venture to say in the area of less than 5 times. This isn't a bi-annual event so people need to quit making it out to be. There's property's in the city that have flooded from the EXACT same storm, that have never flooded before, one of which is located less than ½ a mile from park place.no matter how much planning and preparation go into things like this, you can never "guarantee this doesn't happen to anyone ever again".
Goober
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
Using your logic, flooding to this degree in the past 10 years less than 5 times could be 4 times. I would consider this to be a major issue that should have been part of the notice to anyone renting in the lower floors.
Mike
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
In our world today someone is always at fault.............
a2grateful
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 11:46 a.m.
Belated condolences for your losses. . . Your experience was horrible. Thankfully, you (and all other people) survived that 3.14 storm!
ownrdgd
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.
Mc Kinley properties are not liable for once in a lifetime acts of god. The buildings were approved by the city of ann arbor and given certificates of occupancy and are not built in a flood plain,so sour grapes. Good luck sueing them,I don't see this getting past the show cause stage.
amlive
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
If you're talking about a hamster's lifetime, then your first sentence may be accurate. Fact is that those apartments were a known risk to McKinley. I lived on the second floor of that building for a year about 10 years ago, and the ground floor got flooded under a few feet of water then, in a storm not nearly as severe as this one. I don't know about other flooding events before of after, but I doubt that was the only other time.
Enso
Mon, Sep 10, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
But the plaintiffs are suing because they claim there was 'a history of flooding' that wasn't disclosed to them. This sounds like it's more than a once in a lifetime problem.