METC Copperton Projects Property Owners FAQs

Are you experienced handling matters against METC for property owners and what results have you achieved?

I have over 30 years of experience representing property owners in eminent domain matters. I currently represent over 150 parcels in the Oneida to Nelson Road and Helix to Hiple projects that are being extended by the Copperton projects. My practice focuses on protecting property owners' rights and pursuing just compensation under Michigan law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Has METC historically engaged in the type of property owner outreach being undertaken for the Copperton projects?

Property owners have reported receiving outreach from METC during the early planning stages of the Copperton Projects. Property owner outreach can be an important part of the planning and routing process for major transmission projects. The reasons for METC's current outreach efforts are best addressed by METC.

My practice focuses on representing property owners regarding property rights, easement terms, and just compensation issues. I do not undertake representation relating to opposition to or challenges of utility projects before the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Is the route established for the Copperton projects?

No. METC is seeks input from potentially impacted property owners as part of its decision-making process. Other factors likely include anticipated construction cost, determination of whether METC’s new lines can overlap other utility corridors, and evaluation of regulatory requirements like the ability to obtain wetland permits.

What is the focus of your representation?

I seek to limit the property rights being obtained to only those required to construct the project approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission. Once the rights acquired are defined, I pursue additional just compensation, including issues like damages to the remainder and costs to avoid business interruption.

Will you fight the project in front of the Michigan Public Service Commission?

My practice focuses on representing property owners regarding property rights, easement terms, and just compensation issues. I do not undertake representation relating to opposition to or challenges of utility projects before the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Why retain an eminent domain attorney before the route is established?

If you are asked to submit information to METC, I can review it in advance. I will be available to answer questions as the process unfolds. Knowing that you will have an experienced attorney should the project impact your property should relieve the stress of the process.

If the project does not impact my property, what will you charge me?

I will not charge you anything to perform the limited scope of engagement before regulatory approval occurs and the project route is established.

If you are not charging anything for the initial limited scope of services, why are you willing to accept clients now?

My goal is to represent as many impacted clients as possible, as I am doing in the related Oneida to Nelson Road and Helix to Hiple projects. Accepting and assisting new clients at the outset, before the route is established, is an investment of time that I am willing to undertake to achieve that goal.

What is the standard attorney fee if the project impacts my property?

I typically work on a contingent fee basis. Michigan law may permit reimbursement of attorney fees and certain litigation expenses in some circumstances. Fee arrangements and reimbursement issues are discussed with each client based on the facts of their case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

What are the advantages to hiring Clark Hill?

I believe that it is the best of both worlds to hire a Michigan-based attorney who will personally lead your case but who is backed by one of the largest law firms in the country with offices in Grand Rapids, Lansing, Detroit, and Birmingham.

You may reach me by email at sbagne@clarkhill.com or by phone at 313-965-8897.

Disclaimer: Testimonials and prior results do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts