A court case that has dragged on for over three years was on the brink of being settled, but is now set for a new trial later this year.
Holly Hotel co-owners George and Krissy Kutlenios and Jeremiah Roberts, owner of the former Holly antiques arcade property adjacent to the hotel, appeared before Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Cunningham on Monday for a status hearing after months of mediation sessions failed to reach a settlement in the case.
The Kutlenios’ sued Roberts in August 2023 after negotiations failed to allow crews repairing the hotel access to Roberts’ property following a June 2022 fire at the hotel.
Monday, the two sides told Cunningham that they were still unable to come to an agreement on a settlement tentatively drawn up during a February 2025 bench trial.
“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,” Roberts’ attorney, Alexander Reuter, wrote in court documents back in October 2025. “Unfortunately no written settlement agreement exists.”
Cunningham set a new trial date of Dec. 14 and told both sides the trial would not pick up from where it ended last year.
“We’re going to start over. You folks took the position … that you had a settlement agreement,” said Cunningham. “Things have happened since, I don’t think it’s fair to the court, especially in a bench trial situation, to have me recreate that wheel.”
Back in February, the Kutlenios presented their case for two days with multiple witnesses and exhibits and George Kulenious set to take the stand. Roberts’ defense had not begun their case.
Jeremiah Roberts looks on as his attorney Alexander Reuter discusses the case with Judge Cunningham.
Photo by Matt Fahr
“My gut tells me I need to look at this with fresh eyes, start over, everyone is going to block whatever time off they need, because I’m not going to do it piecemeal,” said the judge.
Each side estimated it would take three days to present their respective cases.
Cunningham allowed Krissy Kutlenious a chance to speak before adjournment and opened the door on Monday to a possible solution to the case.
“We spent more than half of our lives tending to that hotel, as you know. It’s been a part of the community for well over a century. It’s heartbreaking that we still have to be in court even for four years for six inches,” she said. “We have tried everything we can to negotiate, to capitulate … we’ll move the wall. We’ll get out of your hair.”
According to the original lawsuit, after Roberts purchased the adjacent property he asserted the hotel building footprint extended six inches onto his property. He also complained that the eaves being reconstructed on the west side roof extended over his property’s air space and demanded the removal of the eaves.
Kutlenious said they were willing to pay the cost to move the wall back six inches and reestablish a foundation, a sacrifice their attorney Julie Fershtman said would come with a structural cost.
“We will remove the 2×6 at the great expense of removing a tin ceiling that’s part of the historic designation that is sitting on it,” Fershtman said. “My client is willing to sacrifice the key thing that gives this property historic characteristics and historic designation, shaving that ceiling off just to get this case settled.”
On Monday, after Krissy Kutlenious’s comments, Cunningham sent both sides off to come to an agreement. Both attorneys met with their clients privately and at one point all of them were in the courtroom together trying to finalize terms of a settlement.
When the judge returned Julie Fershtman, attorney for the Kulenious’, told him where they stood.
“There is a point that apparently is of great concern to the defendant. I’m not here to belittle it, but I am saying that it prevents us from entering into anything,” said Fershtman. “We are unable to put a settlement on the record on elements that should make this a simple matter.”
The issue hampering a settlement was that an engineering report on the shifting of the wall was not immediately available to Roberts, the adjacent property owner, and Reuter, his attorney, to review.
“The wall is connected to the foundation, so when they move the wall back, the foundation has to be moved. They have an engineering report and they couldn’t get it today,” said Reuter. “Once they get it, we’ll take a look at it, and hopefully, you’ll never see us again. But as of right now, we don’t have a settlement, and we can’t get that report today.”
Cunningham voiced his frustration at Reuter for not putting contingency language in the settlement to accommodate for not having immediate access to the report and ending the case.
“There are ways to draft around this. There’s ways to do it. What I’m getting right now is obstructionist from your side of the room on this issue,” the judge said to Reuter. “It is about two attorneys being able to draft an agreement that has contingency plans about what to do with competing engineering reports. Or, your client is not actually interested in settlement, and we’re just doing a big show for the 80th time.”
Cunningham later said, “(Roberts) doesn’t get to dictate the terms of the foundation. He just doesn’t.”
Reuter responded, “Yes, he does. Yes, he does, or there’s no settlement agreement.”
Reuter repeated his position that they would not agree to a settlement in court on Monday unless the engineering report was produced.
“We’re trying to get a basic understanding of what they’re proposing to do and especially if they’re basing it off of a report that we’ve not even set eyes on, it would be judge, you could think that I’m not doing my job,” said Rueter. “I’m just doing the best that I can to protect my client’s rights, and I think this is the way to do it. And I apologize if you disagree with that.”
With no settlement in place, Cunningham returned to his original next step in the case – a new trial.
“Well, we can start Monday, Dec.14, and we’ll go until we’re done,” he said. “Clear your calendars in December, folks. Santa’s coming here.”