Not asking for legal advice. Person involved has a lawyer, so everything is good on that front. Just asking for speculation on what the fuck might be going on here? Over the summer, my room mate (I'll call him "Princess") decided he had enough of the city code enforcement office sending him warnings if the grass gets too long, and he sent them a strongly-worded, very insulting email, and also posted said letter to a Facebook group for the city. Days later, some actual citations arrived. One for grass being too long, one for having weeds in the yard, one for the garage not being maintained. Princess goes to his first court date in October. They dismiss the Grass/weeds because I mowed and hit it with a weed-whacker. The garage... has rolled roofing, and the inspector says the Code of Ordinances says it must have shingles. Judge says if he corrects the "violation" in 30 days, everything will be dismissed. Sets another court date for late November. Getting the garage shingled would cost $3000. So, I look up the ordinance. It says the city had adopted the 2015 Universal Property Maintenance Code. So, I look up the relevant part of that. The UPMC says the roofs of accessory buildings must be a) free of cracks, gaps, or holes; and b) prevent water from leaking into the interior of the building. It says nothing about acceptable/unacceptable roofing materials. Princess talks to a lawyer. Lawyer says I'm right, nothing says the garage has to have shingles. Lawyer talks to City Attorney, who says I'm right and says he'll recommend dismissal. More citations arrive. November Court Date: Inspector emails the Judge "Princess remains in violation of city code and will continue to receive citations" and doesn't show up. Judge adjourns case and sets another court date for December. More citations arrive. December Court Date: Inspector emails the Judge "Princess remains in violation of city code and will continue to receive citations" and doesn't show up. Judge adjourns case and sets another court date for January. January Court Date: Inspector emails the Judge "Princess remains in violation of city code and will continue to receive citations" and doesn't show up. Judge adjourns case and sets another court date for February. February Court Date (Yesterday): Inspector actually shows up this time. Lawyer says the code doesn't say anything about needing shingles. Inspector says yeah it does. Lawyer asks if he can point out where. Inspector says the code definitely says shingles are needed, and he'd be happy to point to it, but only in a private conversation with Princess's lawyer off-the-record. Judge dismisses case. Nah, I'm kidding. Judge adjourns case and sets another court date for April, which will be a jury trial. So, yeah, what the fuck?
Government sure does like to fuck with private property rights. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me like this inspector is trying to pull some shenanigans, why would it need to be a private conversation?
Sounds like the judge and the code people are teaming up to teach "Princess" a lesson about what happens to people who get uppity.
Sounds like he may have a case where he's being harassed by the inspector, he may have the right to sue the inspector and office.
The citations are obviously a retaliation for the email Princess sent. Considering the citations are for things that aren't actually true and Inspector didn't even bother looking for actual violations, of which there are probably several, there are definitely grounds for a lawsuit. Princess was hoping they'd retaliate and he could sue. However, he sent the email before thinking it through, and when he talked to lawyers about a lawsuit, he was repeatedly told "$10,000 retainer." Princess can afford to keep the lawyer for the upcoming jury trial, and possibly an appeal to circuit court (where it will most likely be dismissed), but not beyond that. Although, at this point, Princess's lawyer is at least as pissed off at the city as the Code Enforcement office is at Princess. Maybe Princess will get a discount? Lawyer did comment that this is the stupidest case he's been a part of. The way this usually goes for the city is "They can't afford a lawyer, we can do what we want." At this point, I suspect it's the criminal version of a SLAPP suit, and they're hoping he'll run out of money to pay a lawyer before the case gets dropped. Although, Princess is more or less a 30% more competent Dayton, so this whole situation is probably going to get a whole lot stupider.
I am not sure what there is to have a trial on, based on the account here. There's no dispute over whether the garage has shingles or not. It doesn't. The dispute over whether the code requires shingles is not something a jury or fact finder need to decide. It either does or doesn't. If the code does require shingles, it should be easy to point out where. That the inspector/city attorney apparently can't point out where seems suspect. But having no knowledge of the either the Universal Property Maintenance Code or your town's other codes, it is possible that there are either cases or other parts of the ordinance that do require shingles specifically. Are the subsequent citations all for the alleged failure to have shingles, or are they for such things as failing to appear for the previous hearings?
Just to clarify: When I said "not asking for legal advice," I didn't mean "I am asking for legal advice, but I'm saying I'm not to get around certain ethical principles." I'm just wondering what might be going on behind the scenes, and I'm not sure the lawyer actually handling the case would be able to freely speculate and speak his mind. From what I understand of the hearing on Monday, it consisted of a back-and-forth of Lawyer saying "does the code specify shingles or not?" and Inspector saying "well, maybe that specific section of the code isn't clear about it, but he needs shingles, and I'll discuss why privately." Then the judge said "jury trial" and exited the Zoom session, and the lawyer threw a fit including several utterances of the phrase "fucking stupid" and what people and circumstances said phrase applies to. The city code of ordinances points to adoption of the Universal Code, and outlines penalties. The Universal Code is pretty much just minimum standards on structural soundness; it's not a set of HOA bylaws or anything remotely similar. If the code says anything about shingles, no one can find it. As far as case law, I'm sure the lawyer has paralegals. I don't feel like researching cases, so I'm not gonna. Anyway, shingles are not going on that garage. If Princess loses the case, I'm tearing the garage down, because fuck 'em. The garage sucks and if $3000 needs to be spent on it, I'll just build a carport or a new garage. No failures to appear. They tried that though. The notice for the January hearing didn't have a date on it when it was sent, they eventually scheduled it for a Monday morning, and did so at the end of the day on Friday right before. Lawyer caught it though and Princess was on Zoom Monday morning. The additional citations are because a new one can be issued every day the "violation" persists. Exactly what it sounds like: roofing material that comes in rolls. It's usually used for flat roofs, but, despite what Inspector thinks and would only discuss off-the-record, nothing says it can't be used on angled roofs.
Basically a big ass shingle. It's a roll of roofing material. It can have the same look as shingles, with the gravel layer on it. It can also just be tar paper, composite roll, or similar. It's cheaper than shingles and less durable. It's also easier to install, you just roll on and secure it.
I skimmed through the link. From what I read, roofs need to protect and prevent water from intruding and damaging the structure. There's also the possibility that the inspector is buddies with someone who didn't like Princess or had a stick up their ass about the garage.
So it could be that there is some other place in the municipal ordinances that says you have to have shingles besides where you have looked. Whatever the Universal Property Maintenance Code says, it's not necessarily the beginning or the end of the regulations involved. It could be the case that the entirety of the regulations do not literally say anywhere "thou shalt have shingles for thine roofs" but that there are administrative decisions by the appropriate agency or rulings by courts that show that indeed, you must have shingles. It could be the case that Princess and you are dealing with a petty bureaucrat who is being punitive. It strikes me as strange that for an administrative violation that the judge would call for a jury trial. Usually those are reserved for criminal cases or things where fines are much larger than I would imagine this would be.
I looked at relevant sections of City Code, Universal Code, and Michigan Law, and found nothing. I also spent a good amount of time doing keyword searches such as "roof," "shingle," "shingles," "garage," "accessory building," ect., nothing. If there's anything in the code, it's the kind of thing only the Chosen One can find once he retrieves the Artifact of Revelation and can decode the Ancient Building Code Scrolls. If such a Chosen One is revealed, I'll let everyone know. Until then, it's not in the code. As far as precedent, administrative decisions, and such go: Maybe. Although I'd imagine that will turn out one of two ways: either it's vague enough that the current roof covering technically fits, or specific enough that every roof in the city is in violation. Precisely why I started this thread. This whole thing appears to be basically a cage match between Dayton (Inspector) and Dayton's Evil Twin (Princess), with Baba (Judge) as referee. I'm desperate for a rational explanation so I don't have to acknowledge that reality is actually this stupid. Ah well, if the trial actually happens, I'm going to see if I can sneak some popcorn in. That's pretty much a certainty. In the email/Facebook post where Princess went off on the Code Enforcement office, he specifically named the one who issued the initial warnings. That guy also happens to be morbidly obese. Near the end of the letter, Princess said something along the lines of "If you keep picking on the people of this city they way you do, we're going to fight back. You'll be hit with so many lawsuits that Obese Inspector will have to limit himself to six meals a day due to how many budget cuts you'll have to make." Turns out Obese Inspector retired shortly after issuing the warnings, because he has cancer. So, the office is all sad because they just found out their colleague has cancer that's going to rapidly get worse, and then Princess writes in insulting him. Yeah, they're pissed.
Fuck you. Your private property rights end when the maintenance of your property starts to affect the community and local housing prices. (Tall grass and unkept property = rodents and visual eyesore.) @Kommander's buddy should have just mowed the fucking grass and took better care of the house. I suspect this is a case where a neighbor complained about the state of the property so the city had to send an inspector and warning letters. Kommander's buddy got uppity and the inspector started flexing his muscle. It's similar to getting pulled over for speeding, mouthing off to a cop, and then suddenly finding out your ticket is not just for speeding, but a broken tail light, unsafe lane changes and careless driving.
as compared to say, HOAs or condo corps? Only things worse than far reaching, uncaring government is a local committee or a corporation that sets its own rules with a fiefdom and too much time on their hands. The inspector is clearly out of line and trying to set a precedent... 10 bucks says he's related to a roofing contractor. The judge I wouldn't hazard a guess over as I can't see why this wasn't thrown out on the strength of the first dismissal.
Update: Court dates were scheduled each month, most were canceled last minute. The one that wasn't canceled, they dropped any arguments about roofing material, and said the garage needed to be repainted. Princess'es's lawyer advised Princess to agree and paint the damn garage, and Princess agreed to paint the garage. Princess then asked me to paint the garage, and I agreed. I did not want to paint the garage, but if Princess tried to do it himself, it would not go well. Best-case scenario, he'd casually touch up some of the bare spots with spray paint, leaving it look like some idiot tried to graffiti up a white garage with white spray paint. I scraped, sanded, and put on two coats of a medium gray exterior acrylic. (I like to use colored paint as much as possible. Picking out colors that look good for a project isn't difficult for me, and it looks like I put a lot more effort in than if I had gone with standard white.) After painting the garage, court dates were canceled a few more times, and then the day before the November court date, the case was dismissed. Yes, this case dragged on for over a year. Since I last posted in this thread, code enforcement sent two more warnings. One around the time I was painting the garage, because an ordinance was passed saying the address needed to be displayed on the back of the property. When the majority of the city isn't in compliance with a new ordinance, it seems lie it would make more sense, and be more cost effective, to send out some fliers or something notifying everyone of the new thing instead of issuing official warnings and threatening fines, but whatever. Most people just used a Sharpie, I bought some number stickers. Princess threw a bitch fit. I asked around, pretty much the whole city got them. Princess still insisted he was unfairly targeted. The second was because the garbage can was in the alley the Saturday after Thanksgiving. That one irritated me, because: 1: Normal trash pick-up is Friday, but was Saturday that week because of the holiday. Ordinance says cans have to be removed from alley by 9pm the day of pick-up, the time stamp on the photo was before 9pm, and I put it away before 9pm. 2: Most people leave their cans in the alley at all times. I'm one of the few who actually puts it away, because if I don't, there's a 50% chance my neighbor will fill it up before the next trash day, and I need that space for my garbage. I asked him not to, he apologized and said he wouldn't, but kept doing it. So, I started putting it away because I decided it's not worth escalating things with my neighbor unless he starts coming into my yard to put his trash in my can, which he hasn't as of yet. This results in me consistently following an ordinance most people don't and I want credit! Princess threw a bitch fit, and decided to complain again, more politely this time.
