Thursday, May 31st 2012
 

Latest Comments

RSS

More Area News

Oakland County Commissioner raises red flag on Holly Township eviction

Print
Written by Amy Mayhew
Friday, February 24 2012

HOLLY TOWNSHIP, Michigan – A Holly Township couple and their two young children will be homeless next week after Holly Township officials refused to rescind an order of eviction slated for Monday, Feb. 27.

The matter was discussed at a special meeting on Thursday, Feb. 23.

For the last two years, Timm and Maria Smith have been embroiled in a lawsuit with Holly Township after the township was deeded a 10-acre portion of their 20-acre property following the Smith's foreclosure on their mortgage in 2008.


Republic Bank, granted the mortgage for a 10-acre portion of their 20-acre riverfront property without ever verifying that the parcel had been legally split into individual parcels. Because the land had not been legally split, the Smiths maintain the 10-acre portion of the property in question never legally existed on paper.


In May of 2008, an Oakland County Sheriff’s deed on the mortgage sale conveyed the 10-acre parcel to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) who in turn conveyed the parcel to the Federal National Mortgage Association in June.

In May 2009, The Federal National Mortgage Association sold the parcel to PHH Mortgage Corporation for $138,502.20, Holly Township’s predecessor in title, and in July of that year, the 52-2 District Court entered a Consent Judgment awarding PHH Mortgage Corporation possession of the property.

In December of 2009, PHH Mortgage Corporation issued a Quit Claim deed to Holly Township, valuing the property at $0.

Holly Township Clerk Karin Winchester said PHH Quit Claim deeded the property to Holly Township because the property had multiple code violations including blight and dangerous buildings that required demolition.

The Smiths maintain that it wasn’t legally PHH’s property to give, and have been living at their residence without the township’s blessing for most of the time throughout their battle with Holly Township.

On Feb. 22, the couple and their two children received a Order of Eviction by Judge Kelly Kostin in the Oakland County 52-2 District Court.

Kostin gave the Smiths 24-hours to vacate the premises.

The Smiths’ attorney, Casper Connolly said 24-hours notification for an eviction is rare. “Normally, 10-days is the minimum amount of time a judge will give, and often it’s more like 30-days,” he said.

“When we got home at 4:45 p.m., the eviction officer was already sitting in our driveway,” Timm Smith said. “He told us that he had orders to be back at 6 a.m. on Wednesday to evict us.”

Learning of their fate, Oakland County Commissioner Bob Hoffman spoke with the Smiths on Tuesday evening, and later contacted Holly Township Supervisor Jesse Lambert, asking him to postpone the Smiths’ eviction.


Hoffman convinced Lambert to postpone the eviction until Monday, Feb. 27. Additionally, Hoffman said Lambert agreed to have the township’s lawyer, Lisa Hamaneh and Connolly set up a meeting in which the matter could be discussed, and possibly resolved.

Hoffman said Lambert confirmed a meeting between the two parties had been set for noon on Tuesday, Feb. 28, and that when he asked Lambert to put off the eviction process for an additional day or two until the meeting could occur, Lambert flatly refused.

Because the Smiths case is currently lodged in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Connolly appeared before Kostin on Thursday afternoon, submitting a motion to rescind the eviction notice until the case can be resolved in a higher court. His motion was denied.

Hoffman’s involvement in the issue caused Lambert to call Thursday’s special meeting.

“Somebody asked me why I got involved with this,” Hoffman said during Thursday’s public comment portion of the meeting. “I got involved because I’m the County Commissioner, and these people are my constituents, just like they’re your constituents.”

Describing himself as a “pit bull when it comes to land rights,” Hoffman reminded township officials of their roles. “Not only is it our sworn duty to protect the property rights of our citizens, but we have a moral obligation to do that,” he said.

“When Holly Township received the deed for this property, it had to raise red flags everywhere because the unrecorded legal description you received with the deed didn’t match the description of the 20-acres,” Hoffman said. “The land you claim to own, you can’t even buy title insurance for – you can’t even sell that property, but you claim it’s yours.”

Referencing the Smith’s Order of Eviction, Hoffman said he initially had several questions.

“One of my first questions was how can you evict somebody when the case is lodged in the Michigan Court of Appeals,” Hoffman said, adding that when the matter was raised to Kostin, her answer was that she didn’t have any documentation pertaining to the appeal.

“Don’t you think it’s a legal and a moral obligation for the township attorney to say, ‘Yes, this is in the Court of Appeals?’” Hoffman asked.

Hoffman questioned Lambert’s decision to go through with the eviction on Feb. 27 before the scheduled negotiation meeting on Feb. 28.

“It reminds me of Dec. 7, 1941 when the Japanese were in Washington DC negotiating with the United States government while they were dropping bombs in Pearl Harbor,” Hoffman said. “You know what, it might seem smaller to you, but this is the same thing to the Smiths.”

Much to Hoffman’s dismay, Lambert said the proposed meeting on Feb. 28 had not been organized, adding that the meeting “didn’t even go through,” and that all he had promised was the potential for a meeting.

Hoffman asked the board one final time to consider putting off the eviction. “The whole world is not going to condemn you for this, but you’re going to bring more bad publicity to the village of Holly that we don’t need,” Hoffman said. “The public is going to see that you threw a family out that is down on their luck – the husband just had more surgery – that’s what the public is going to see.”

Lambert said the township has made the offer to purchase the Smiths’ remaining parcels on numerous occasions, but that the Smiths hadn’t responded or expressed any interest.

“Because somebody doesn’t initially respond to something doesn’t mean you end negotiations,” Hoffman said. “You made the best suggestion of all and that’s to put the olive branch out there again and try to resolve this.”


Lambert said the “olive branch” had never been withdrawn.

“You need to put off this eviction until that happens,” Hoffman said. “You have the power to do that – I don’t know what the sense of urgency is here.”

“My husband and I have gone through hard times, but we have been stewards of this land for so long,” a trembling Maria Smith said from the podium. “We feel like it’s a small thing to ask because it does no harm to the township whatsoever that we stay in our home until this at least gets heard at the appellate level, or that we maybe come to some sort of an agreement.”

Maria said Tuesday’s eviction marks the fourth attempt by the township to oust her family. "What you guys have done is seized upon my weakness at my darkest hour and attacked us unceasingly,” she said, adding that her family has put at least $50,000 into the legal process.

“I’m going to owe big money on this if I don’t win,” she said. “My gamble is huge – my gamble is my family.”


Maria blames the stress caused by the lawsuit on her husband’s ailing health. “Actually, I feel that you’re liable – and I’m not trying to threaten you, but you’re very much liable for wrongful death or injury to my husband, and I will stand here strongly and tell you, he is the love of my life, and if you want to kill him, keep evicting us,” she said. “I can’t believe that you guys don’t know this – that you’re destroying me – you’re destroying my family. I’m ready to negotiate with you, but until you call off your dogs, my family is waiting to be evicted on Monday.”

With no clear title on the property, and the case lodged at the appellate level, Holly resident George Kullis asked what the township’s intent is with the property. “Are we intending on doing something with that property?” he asked.

Lambert said governments typically “sit on a piece of land,” until it can be used for another purpose like a store house, a police station, a fire station, a township hall, or a park. “I mean, the list goes on and on – anything you can publicly think would be an open book for the property.”

“Like a canoe livery or something,” a member of the audience asked.

“That could be a possibility,” Lambert said. “Has it been seriously discussed, talked about or has the township made a move in any direction on it, no,” he added. “It’s still in litigation and again, until someone lands a firm title, the township really can’t do anything with it.”

“Then why evict them,” one member of the audience said. “Exactly – why are we here?” asked another.

“This whole thing has just been so upsetting – and I’m going to ask you – would you throw out your neighbor’s kids in the snow on a Wednesday morning at 6 a.m. just to prove you could do it?” Timm Smith asked. “Are you really going to throw my children out in the snow Monday morning knowing that we have no place else to live and we are again going to be on the other five acres of land living in a tent?”

As the attorney for the Smiths, Connolly took the opportunity to share his thoughts.

“Does anyone in this room touch a piece of real estate without getting title insurance?” Connolly asked. “Did you try? Did you say we want to apply and get title insurance for this property? No. Because you know you can’t,” he said. “Isn’t that a red flag all by itself?”


“When did it happen that the township came in competition with those that they’re supposed to be protecting?” he said. “When did the referee that’s supposed to be maintaining a level playing field decide to get in the game? That’s not your role here.”

Following public comment, township officials adjourned to executive session to discuss the matter further. A half hour later, Trustee Steve Ruth made the motion for Treasurer Mark Freeman and Lambert to negotiate the purchase of the Smith’s remaining two 5-acre parcels. In a vote of 4-0, the motion passed. Trustee Janet Leslie was excused from the meeting.

Leslie said she was not consulted prior to scheduling the meeting, and that after sharing times she could attend the meeting with the supervisor and other board members, no apparent attempt was made to reschedule the meeting. “Had I been there, I would have suggested to the board that we move to postpone the eviction by 60 days in order to give all concerned parties the opportunity to evaluate options,” she said. “There is no reason I know of for the board to move with such urgency toward eviction, and as concerns have been raised that we have not heard before, there could be no harm in giving this issue a little more time and consideration.”

“Does that mean you will stop the eviction since you’re going to set up this committee to negotiate with them?” Hoffman asked.

“No,” Lambert replied.

“You’re still going to evict them?” a disbelieving Hoffman asked.

“Yes sir. That’s what’s going to happen,” Lambert said.

“I think this is absolutely outrageous,” Hoffman said. “I don’t know why you’re doing this to these people. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.”

Holly resident Larry Lilly got the opportunity to have the last word.


“I have a reputation of always fighting for the underdog,” Lilly said. “Tonight, the Smiths are the underdogs, especially when they have kids,” he added. “You didn’t listen tonight – you went (into executive session) and made your decisions – you didn’t even do it face-to-face.”


Lilly, who in the past has expressed great respect for the Holly Township Board of Trustees, said the board’s decision caused him to reconsider.

“I’ve had a lot of respect for you all these years, but tonight I’ve lost it,” he said. “You will not have my support anymore – none of you. You don’t put women and children out on the street,” he added. “I’m a firm believer in God and what you’re doing tonight is absolutely wrong and now you’re going to have to live with it.”



Comments  

 
+3 #1 Joe Friday, February 24 2012 7:21pm
While I have some compassion for the Smith's situation, they're in over their head on this.

Look at the previous article on this story. They couldn't pay the mortgage on the property which is why it went back to the bank. Now it seems like they're trying to claim some legal loophole ownership of a portion of the property.

Are they paying the bank for the property that they're living on today or are they just squatting?

It's become all too much of the norm for people to try and screw the banks because they took on more debt than they could handle. Show some fiscal responsibility and live within your means.

The $50K they've spent in legal fees could have been spent on a home that they would have owned outright.
Report to administrator
 
 
+2 #2 Cathy Friday, February 24 2012 10:01pm
Why wouldn't the Township Supervisor, Jesse Lambert want to protect this family from an eviction in the middle of winter? Something fishy is going on here. This appears to be very illegal. I wonder how he would feel if it was his children. There is no urgency so just what is the agenda,Jesse? Can you show a little compassion or are you adding another blackeye to Holly? I hope you will change your mind b/c it sounds like you will be losing a lot of support in the next election.
Report to administrator
 
 
+14 #3 Ryan Bladzik Friday, February 24 2012 10:32pm
Here's the background on this story that provides a more clear picture:

thehollyexpress.com/.../...
Report to administrator
 
 
+1 #4 Cathy Friday, February 24 2012 10:47pm
I thought they lived at this location for 24yrs. Never had any trouble until some health issues and job loss caused them to fall behind. How can you take this kind of action when the case is tied up in the Mi. Court of Appeals? Have some compassion, it's the middle of winter and there is children involved. You are making a very bad name and reputation for yourself. Jesse, you call the shots so let's hope you will help this family and not hurt them. :cry:
Report to administrator
 
 
-2 #5 Ann Saturday, February 25 2012 12:51am
Joe and Ryan thank you for clarifying and for providing us with documentation and facts. Cathy, I understand your feeling compassion for this family as any one of us can’t help but to be saddened when hearing someone has lost their home due to any hardship. Reality is that our Township cannot serve as an assistance program; the Smith family seems to be in great need of relief at this time and should be directed to those types of programs that were created to help them.

I believe Holly Township elected officials made this decision with ALL of their constituents in mind. What our Township Board had to do last night was difficult; I imagine most went home with less hair but ALL with heavy heart. I hope they know that many of us understand their decisions were based on facts and that we stand in support of them.
Report to administrator
 
 
+9 #6 amayhew Saturday, February 25 2012 8:50am
Just to clarify - at the top of the article where it says "lawsuit with Holly Township" in red links back to the original article I wrote about the Smiths with all the background information on the issue for those who don't know.
Report to administrator
 
 
+4 #7 Ryan Bladzik Saturday, February 25 2012 8:56am
When judging this situation, or any other local issue, let's all remember to also consider the factor of who is running for election or reelection, and how that factor might be influencing their input or participation.
Report to administrator
 
 
+6 #8 Bob Hoffman Saturday, February 25 2012 10:54am
Ann:
Your comments are appreciated, however, the fact is Holly Township cannot prove they own this property. The case is in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, what is the urgency of evicting the Smiths and their two young children from their home? At this point in time, it's really up for debate who owns the property. I say we err on the side of caution and allow the Smiths to continue living there until the court make its ruling. Evicting them is an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

Jesse Lambert, Mark Freeman, Karin Winchester, and Steve Ruth were elected to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. In my opinion, they have failed miserably.
Report to administrator
 
 
+12 #9 TheDuke Saturday, February 25 2012 11:38am
As a home owner, I would not appreciate giving the government the power to evict people under the auspices of ownership when there is a clearly disputed title. This case is currently in the courts, and the courts, per the US Constitution, will be the final arbiter of ownership. Until that time, the township, if they do not prevent kicking this family out in the middle of winter, cannot do anything with the property.

Also, from the first article in The Holly Express, the township required the Smiths to install a road, at a cost of about $120,000 if the property were split. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, so if the township board takes possession of the ten acres and leaves the other ten acres, I would expect that they will be required to build that road. In the next township board meeting, I expect to see where the funding for the road will be coming from, and the plans to have it completed before any development or use is made of the property. This was a requirement forced on the public and should also be required of the township.

Be careful of the power that is being asserted here. Next time it could be your property. It sounds like all that they need is a disputed title and viola, they can kick you out and do what they want with what you think is currently yours. Our property rights need to be protected, or we will lose them, 10 acres at a time.
Report to administrator
 
 
+24 #10 vhogan Saturday, February 25 2012 12:15pm
After reading this and giving it a great deal of thought, I can't help but think there is something big the Holly Township Board members have not revealed to the public or the media. I don't know Mr. Ruth, am somewhat acquainted with Mr. Freeman, but I have known Jesse Lambert and Karin Winchester for several years. I can't believe in my heart that they would put this family out on the street like this unless there was more to this, and further that they would take a public beating like this on this site and on Facebook. It's political suicide! There must be something we don't know. This went into executive session and I, for one, am wondering why.

Having said that, I hope that if this tragic event actually does take place on Monday, that members of the Holly community, who are well known for their kindness and generosity, will do what they can to help this family. Maybe the churches can help, or maybe a landlord with a vacant apartment can give them a couple of months of shelter, something.
Report to administrator
 
 
+11 #11 SandraKay Saturday, February 25 2012 4:45pm
I have to agree with Bob Hoffman here. Since this case is still in appeal and nothing can be done with the property until after the decision is made, why evict a family in the middle of winter. I know I don't have all the details but erring on the side of caution WHY do the eviction at this time. Again I must say I am very disappointed in the Township Board and have lost a lot of respect for them.
Report to administrator
 
 
+4 #12 Frank Sweeney Saturday, February 25 2012 7:01pm
Two words. Land grab.
Report to administrator
 
 
+4 #13 timmmy Sunday, February 26 2012 12:08am
WWJD
Report to administrator
 
 
+2 #14 Frank Sweeney Sunday, February 26 2012 2:00pm
I had to read the article again today, and I still cannot understand why the board doe not see what they are doing is wrong. They remind me of the musicians on the Titanic as they played 'Happy Days are Here Again' while the ship continued to sink into the cold depths of the Atlantic.
Report to administrator
 
 
+1 #15 Joe Sunday, February 26 2012 2:53pm
Again, I have sympathy for the family's struggles but let's not get caught up in this anti-government / anti-big bank mentality that seems to be common in a poor economy. If you don't pay your bills (which is my impression from the previous article), then you can't keep the land.

Let's say there is some legal loophole in how the property was divided or whatever. Is the family going to be able to finance the property and pay the taxes that go along with it?

It's unfortunate that health issues or whatever may keep someone from paying their bills but we all need to show responsibility with our finances. Chasing a dream of a market and campground while accumulating legal fees doesn't seem to be fiscally responsible in this situation.

As far as eviction, the last article didn't describe the greatest living conditions on the property. If the family was offered a buyout by the township, they surely would have finances to rent something suitable.
Report to administrator
 
 
+4 #16 George Kullis Sunday, February 26 2012 8:39pm
Vera, while I have not lived in Holly as long as you have, it was very apparent that some members of this board are hiding something. There appears to be a hidden agenda behind this eviction. This was obvious had you attended the emergency meeting on Thursday. This case has so many red flags it should scare people. If we truly ascribe to "Government of the people, by the people, for the people ", then we owe it to ourselves to look at this situation with greater depth. For the last three years, we've been told there are assistance programs to help homeowners and that the banks are supposed to be willing to work with homeowners. But when the banks have guaranteed loan programs backed by the federal government which support their poor decisions, what reason do they have to work with the debtor. My wife and I know from personal experience that this is not totally true. Some banks are not willing to work with the debtor. It would be interesting to find out if the bank received loan guarantees against this property from the government ( i.e.tax dollars ) and if so, how much money. There are many facts of this case that I don't know and that I have not been privy to. I do know that the land split is not a legal split and that there are other factors that need to be resolved. The involved parties are in the courts looking for answers, so what is the urgency behind this eviction. If this land wasn't so desirable, would they be moving this quickly before eminent domain is established? While the focus of the township should be determining a legal description on this land that is indeed legal the township is more concerned about getting their hands on this property for their own use that should scare everyone. Let’s not forget that they own half of this land free and clear but can’t market it without a legal description. All we are asking is that the township waits for the courts to sort it out. There is nothing the township can do with the land until the courts decide how to resolve it.
Report to administrator
 
 
+3 #17 George Kullis Sunday, February 26 2012 8:43pm
Joe I've been out to this house it is liveable my house has many things that need to be restored when I can get to them.
Report to administrator
 
 
0 #18 Bob Hoffman Sunday, February 26 2012 10:12pm
Those are all great points you make, George. I would just add that after looking at the plot plan of the property, the 10-acres the township alleges it owns is located in between the Smiths' two 5-acre parcels. Not only does the 10-acre parcel in question land lock the Smith’s 5-acre parcel along the river which is illegal, but accessing the 10-acre parcel is not even possible without trespassing on the Smiths’ other 5-acre parcel that borders S. Holly Road.

Again, I can only emphasize that the Holly Township Board of Trustees, the very people who are elected to protect Holly Township citizens and their land rights, are attacking them for the purpose of grabbing the land for nothing.

Holly Township taxpayers need to understand that their government is spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to obtain a piece of property that legally, they will never be able to access or use – it’s simply against the Michigan Land Division Act, an act that members of the board are sworn to uphold.

Supervisor Jesse Lambert, Clerk Karin Winchester, Treasurer Mark Freeman, and Trustee Steve Ruth - if this was money out of your own personal pocket, would you spend it this recklessly? Somehow, I don’t think so. Stop this eviction now and let the court determine the true ownership of the property.
Report to administrator
 
 
+8 #19 vhogan Monday, February 27 2012 1:10am
I truly appreciate all of these comments and understand what most are saying. I will only say this one more time, there has to be something going on here that we don't know about yet. Why in heaven's name would these board members commit political suicide like this if there wasn't more to the story? If there is no way to utilize this property, or get clear title, and it's that obvious, why would they even try at the risk of getting run out of the township on a rail? I'm sorry but it does not make sense!
Report to administrator
 
 
+1 #20 George Kullis Monday, February 27 2012 5:21am
Vera Acording to one board member the eviction will force them to negotiate on the other 2 parcels if you own all the land it would be whole again problem solved.Also I have found out that the split was designed by the bank to fit Fanny Mae Guide lines. They won't Gaurantee over ten acres. now were back to an ilegal split that a title company signed off on. When the Smiths attorney requested copies of the title work it was all blacked out claiming client privilage.They want this land if it wasn't on the river I'm willing to bet we wouldn't be here. The sense of urgency
Question still hasn't been answered. One more thing Jesse & Mark are always adding thier opinions to articles on this site why not this time?
Report to administrator
 
 
+7 #21 Jason M Hughes Monday, February 27 2012 9:10am
Because the courts have already ruled in favor of the township back in November, I wonder what liabilities the township has until a decision is made in the court of appeals.
Report to administrator
 
 
+1 #22 George Kullis Monday, February 27 2012 10:11am
Look this is a very unusual case that needs to be straightened out. The day the Township recieved the Quit claim deed from the bank on a parcel of land that can't excist in it's present form Jessie should have championed this case in the name of the property owner and helped them get it straightened out.
Report to administrator
 

To comment on this article, please register for an account or log-in if you already have an account.

 



Front Page | Community | Sports and Outdoors | Opinion | Education | Holly Express | Site Map
©2012 The Holly Express.
Send feedback to Editor@theHollyExpress.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be broadcast, published, rewritten or redistributed without prior written permission.