Cordts v. Griffis
| Decision Date | 16 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case Number 18-13017 |
| Parties | JANET M. CORDTS, Plaintiff, v. DUANE GRIFFIS, HURON CHARTER TOWNSHIP, JACK BUSH, and BUSH & SON GRADING & EXCAVATING, INC., Defendants, and JACK BUSH, and BUSH & SON GRADING & EXCAVATING, INC., Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs, v. HURON CHARTER TOWNSHIP Defendant/Cross-Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable David M. Lawson
Janet Cordts owns property on Otter Road in Huron Township, Michigan, on which sat a rundown house. She filed this lawsuit against the Township and its city attorney, a police officer, and an excavation contractor after the house was condemned and demolished. Cordts alleges that the Township did not follow proper procedures to give her notice of the impending demolition and retaliated against her when she complained about it. She says the contractor gleefully inflicted emotional distress when she showed up at the property on demolition day attempting to forestall the destruction of the house and recover keepsakes and personal property. And she contends that the police officer violated her constitutional rights during the process.
Cordts's lengthy complaint contains a variety of federal and state law theories for recovery, at least two of which, she believes, entitles her to some relief as a matter of law. The defendants raise certain immunity defenses and contend that under the facts turned up through discovery — including evidence that Cordts had actual knowledge of the impending demolition — all of Cordts's claims must fail. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment to enforce those positions, and there is merit to some of the arguments on each side. But because genuine fact issues exist, neither side can prevail in full at this stage of the case. Therefore, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the cross motions for summary judgment.
Janet Cordts's property is located at 21525 Otter Road, New Boston, Michigan. In 1990, the plaintiff's mother-in-law conveyed the parcel to the plaintiff and her then-husband, Franklin Cordts, as joint tenants, and they recorded the deed with the Wayne County Recorder of Deeds. Since that time, the plaintiff and her husband divorced, and Franklin Cordts conveyed his interest to the plaintiff via an unrecorded quitclaim deed in 2011. The plaintiff did not record the deed until after the house was torn down in August 2015. However, she testified that she personally went to the Township office on several occasions after 2011 to furnish a copy of the deed and change the address for tax bills.
Around 2011, the plaintiff stopped living at the house because she accepted a 24-hour-per-day live-in caregiver position for an elderly couple in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Although the plaintiff no longer lived at the home, she said she used it as a "home base" while she lived with the elderly couple. However, the vacant house deteriorated rapidly. The water was cut off in 2011,part of the roof collapsed, the house was missing shingles, the doors did not lock, the outside was overgrown with wild vegetation, the front door area smelled like urine, children played inside, and neighbors complained about its unsafe condition. Nonetheless, the plaintiff testified that she paid the property taxes from bills in Franklin's name that came to her at her West Bloomfield address.
Throughout 2013, the plaintiff says she went to the Township hall over 30 times attempting to get building permits to fix the property. She never succeeded at reaching the building department officials, so she mailed two letters to the building department: one on May 23, 2014, and another on June 7, 2014. The May letter outlined repairs she wanted to make to the driveway, and the June letter indicated that she planned to install a new roof, but that she may need to demolish the structure if the repairs were too costly. Both letters asked for a response directed to her at her West Bloomfield address. But Huron Township never responded. Without a permit to fix the structure, the plaintiff tarped the roof and then left town, travelling with the couple she cared for to their home in Florida, as she had done every year.
Eventually, Huron Township condemned the building under its dangerous building and blight enforcement ordinances in 2014. Each ordinance serves a separate purpose. The dangerous building ordinance requires the building inspector to respond to complaints about buildings that are "dangerous," "unsafe structurally" or a "fire hazard" by inspecting the offending structure and docketing a report with the Township that describes the structure's condition, its use, and the damages. Dangerous Building Ordinance § 159-4(A). If the inspector finds the building in a dangerous condition, he must issue a hearing notice to the owner or occupant. But if the name of the owner is not known, the inspector must look to "the last tax assessment records," and send thenotice there. Id. § 159-4(A)-(B). This procedure mirrors state law requirements. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.540.
The notice will announce that a hearing will take place before a hearing officer, giving the time and place, and telling the property owner that she "shall have the opportunity" to show cause why the hearing officer should not order the building or structure to be demolished, otherwise made safe, or properly maintained. Id. § 159-4(C).
The notice, of course, must be in writing and served personally or by mail at least 10 days before the hearing. If mailing is the method, it must be certified with a return receipt requested, and it must be addressed to "the owner or party in interest at the address shown on the tax records." Id. § 159-4(E). It also must be posted on "a conspicuous part" of the property. Ibid. If the hearing is held and the property owner does not show up, the hearing officer's findings and order must be served in the same way. Id. § 159-4(C).
After at least 30 days, the Township Board must hold a second hearing to review the hearing officer's findings. The Township must notify the owner in the same manner. Id. § 159-5(D). At that hearing, the owner must be given a chance "to show cause why the order should not be enforced." Ibid. After the Township Board makes its decision, the property owner has 20 days to appeal the decision to a Michigan circuit court by filing a petition for an order of superintending control. Id. § 159-6.
Huron Township's blight ordinance outlines a slightly different procedure for dealing with owners of blighted property. First, the owner and occupant is given notice to remove the blighted condition within two days. The notice must be served personally if that is "practical." If not, it may be mailed using certified mail; posting is required with this option. If the owner responds and asks for more time to address the condition, it may be granted. Blight Ordinance § 152-4(B).Next, if the owner fails to remediate the blight or otherwise comply with the requirements set forth in the notice, the Township may seek either "abatement action in the 3rd Circuit Court of Michigan, and/or an appearance ticket action in the 34th District Court of Michigan." Ibid.
Between 2013 and 2014, Huron Township received complaints from neighbors about the dilapidated condition of the house on Cordts's property. In the summer of 2014, Huron Township conducted two inspections of the property under its dangerous building ordinance. First, Jonathan Tackett, Huron Township's building inspector, entered the property, circled the house, and viewed the property on all sides. Then, Ralph Pasola, Huron Township's zoning administrator and blight enforcement officer, circled the property, peeked his head inside, and took photographs. Neither Tackett nor Pasola received the plaintiff's consent to enter her property, nor did they obtain a warrant for the inspections. At his deposition, Pasola acknowledged that his legal authority for entering the house amounted to "nothing." Pasola Dep, ECF No. 37-13, PageID.1142.
Tackett could not recall the date of his inspection, but he believed it preceded Pasola's inspection, which occurred on July 8, 2014. Tackett also testified that his inspection was the only time he entered the property until the demolition and that he posted a sticker on the exterior of the home stating that it was a dangerous building. That "sticker" did not fulfill the dangerous buildings ordinance's requirement, as it did not include the location or time of any hearing.
Following Tackett's inspection, Huron Township scheduled a hearing under its dangerous building ordinance. To ascertain the individual who owned the property, the Township looked at the county property tax records, which identified only Franklin Cordts as the owner. However, a "Summer/Winter Tax Bill Information" document for 2013 lists Janet Cordts as the owner andspecifies her West Bloomfield address. No township employee took any additional steps before the demolition to determine the identity of interested persons in the parcel that were not on the tax records.
Cara Laurain, Huron Township's operations manager, sent a notice of the hearing to Mr. Cordts' then-current address on Otto Court in New Boston, Michigan, through first-class mail. The return receipt in the record appears to contain a signature for Franklin Cordts, but the date of the signature is not apparent, and the notice is festooned with "return to sender" legends. Pasola and Laurain both testified that they also called Franklin Cordts, who told them that he wanted nothing to do with the property. Franklin Cordts, however, never testified to that conversation.
The record is...
To continue reading
Request your trial