After over a year of negotiations and mediation failed to hash out a settlement both sides in the Holly Hotel legal case have agreed to try again.
Hotel co-owners George and Krissy Kutlenios and Jeremiah Roberts, owner of the former Holly antiques arcade property next to the hotel, agreed Thursday before Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Cunningham to another mediation session on May 8.
The Kutlenios sued Roberts, owner of the former Holly antiques arcade next door to the hotel, in August 2023 after negotiations failed to allow crews repairing the hotel access to Roberts’ property.
The lawsuit, among other things, asked for at least three months access to Roberts’ property to complete work on the hotel, which was severely damaged in a June 2022 fire.
On Feb. 10, 2025, a day before George Kutlenios was scheduled to testify in a trial intended to restart repairs to the hotel, a settlement was reached.
Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Cunningham agreed to set the next mediation date for May 8.
Phhoto by Matt Fahr
Media News Group
“Your honor, I am happy to report that we have the terms of a resolution that we worked out,” Roberts’ attorney Alexander Reuter told Cummingham that afternoon.
Fourteen months later, tentative terms spelled out in the agreement drawn up that day still had not been fully negotiated.
Documents filed by both parties in October 2025 explained why no final agreement had been reached.
“While the parties provisionally agreed to settle the case on certain terms, that agreement lacked certainty and essential terms and was entirely conditioned upon the parties entering into a written settlement agreement,” Reuter wrote in court documents. “Unfortunately no written settlement agreement exists.”
Cunningham has twice referred the matter to retired Judge James Alexander for mediation.
“Despite spending the better part of eleven hours with Judge Alexander, the parties could not agree to a final written settlement agreement,” wrote attorneys Julie Fershtman and Bryan Cermak, who represent the Kutlenios, in their brief to the court.
The February 2025 tentative settlement contained mutual press releases, documents regarding sale of property, a confidentiality provision, a non-disparagement provision, a non-disclosure provision and a dismissal to all complaints in the case.
Kutlenios’ attorneys explained in October that one of the remaining issues in the case is the press release.
“The proposed release was negotiated and redrafted on no less than seven occasions,” Kutlenios’ attorneys wrote. “Unfortunately, despite the attorneys tentatively agreeing, in principle, to various edits to the proposed release, Robert’s position is and has been, despite discussions between counsel, nothing has been agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
According to court documents, the two sides traded settlement agreement proposals almost monthly thru October 2025, with Roberts’ continued efforts to force the hotel owners to take accountability for disparaging social media comments against him and his family.
In a September 2025 email, Cermak said the Kutlenios’ would agree to the following statement: “The Holly Hotel is pleased to announce that a signed settlement regarding the rebuilding of the restaurant’s west wall and the dispute regarding property line encroachments. Regretfully, many disparaging comments have been voiced and posted on social media against Mr. Roberts and his family ….. which was never condoned by the Holly Hotel.”
One draft of the statement stated that the owners “expressly and unequivocally disagree with and sincerely regret if there was any involvement in promoting those comments”.
Reuter is asking that since no final agreement exists that Cunningham dismiss the case or order both sides back for another trial.
Fershtman and Cermak contend the original settlement should remain in place and the case ended.
“This case was settled by the parties on the record on February 11, 2025,” they wrote in the October briefs. “The fact that the parties have not agreed to the final wording of a written settlement agreement does not and cannot change the fact of the underlying settlement.”