Tuesday, June 18th 2013
 

More Area News

Oakland County Commissioner asks township for compromise in Smith eviction

Print
Written by Amy Mayhew
Friday, July 20 2012

The Smith family picketed befo...

HOLLY TOWNSHIP, Michigan – Picket signs, a standing-room-only crowd, and many differing opinions added up to one explosive board meeting Wednesday night, as Oakland County Commissioner Bob Hoffman once again defended the property rights of residents Timm and Maria Smith in their ongoing legal battle against Holly Township.

Background
Over the last five months, Hoffman has become involved in the Smiths’ lawsuit against Holly Township regarding ownership of a 10-acre portion of the 20-acre S. Holly Road property the Smiths once entirely owned. A legal land split of the parcel was never performed, and now the Smiths maintain that the mortgage on the 10-acre parcel on which they defaulted in 2008 was fraudulent.

The township is claiming ownership of the parcel, however, because a legal land split never occurred, the Smiths maintain that the township violated the Land Division Act, the fraudulent mortgage should thus be null and void, and that the property should revert to them.


The case is still lodged in the Michigan Appellate Court and is not scheduled to be heard for another 12 to 18 months. An eviction ruling by 52-2 District Court Judge Kelley Kostin was enforced on Feb. 27.

Since February, Timm and Maria...


Since then, the Smiths have vacated their home on the 10-acre parcel in question, moved all of their belongings and taken up residence in a recreational vehicle parked on the adjacent 5-acre parcel of land still belonging to them.

Last week, Hoffman asked to be added to the Holly Township Board of Trustees meeting so that he could ask township officials to reconsider the matter of the Smiths’ February eviction and allow them to reoccupy their home until the Michigan Court of Appeals rules on the matter sometime late next year.


Hoffman’s comments

“What I’m asking this board to do is to put the Smith family back in their home until the Court of Appeals rules,” Hoffman said. “It has not been determined who owns this property yet – it’s in the Court of Appeals.”

Because the ownership of the parcel is in question, Hoffman said the township doesn’t have a marketable title to the property.

Oakland County Commissoner Bob...


“They can’t even buy title insurance for it, and they land locked the northern 5-acres of the Smiths’ property which they own,” Hoffman said. “The Smiths are living in a camper on the property – they have no place to go.”

Hoffman suggested that the township consider striking a deal with the Smiths, giving them occupancy of their old home in exchange for the Smiths maintaining the property.

“Until the Court of Appeals rules, let them have a roof over their heads,” Hoffman said. “They have two children, Mr. Smith has had five cancer surgeries, he’s broken his back prior to that, and had a stroke, so I’m just asking you to please have the courage to do this – I don’t believe it will affect anything other than it will show a lot of compassion from this board.”

Holly officials discuss the matter

Trustee Janet Leslie asked Hoffman what it meant to “put the Smiths back into the house.”

“You can make a deal with them,” Hoffman said. “When I talked to (Clerk Karin Winchester), she said they would need to pay rent, but there are ways to put people into township property as a caretaker with certain responsibilities.”

In doing so, Hoffman said the property would be better maintained than it is now. “The most important thing is this man who has been sick, his kids and their mother would have a roof over their heads.”

Supervisor Jesse Lambert discussed the idea of putting a Holly Township-initiated contract together, allowing the Smiths to reoccupy the dwelling in exchange for maintenance services until the Court of Appeals can make a ruling.

“The main problem with negotiating something like that at this point is that it is a dangerous building,” Winchester said, citing that the home has several violations and is not fit for occupancy.

“The bottom line is that it is still disputed ownership,” Hoffman said. “That’s why it’s in the Court of Appeals,” he added. “The township cannot go buy title insurance, they can’t market this piece of property, they can’t sell it to anybody – as a matter of fact, it violates the Land Division Act that the township is supposed to uphold. They land locked the parcel to the north along the river, and all that stuff needs to be fixed.”

Trustee Janet Leslie


“Any way you look at it, it’s costing the township taxpayers’ money for us to even possess this,” Trustee Janet Leslie said. “If there is a way to stop the bleeding of funds and make the code violations someone else’s issue – someone who happens to have an interest in living on that property, then it could be a win-win for them.”

Leslie eventually made a motion to the board, directing Attorney Greg Need to create a contract that would allow the Smiths to occupy the 10-acre parcel to which the township currently holds a deed on the condition that in a certain time period, the property and structures on the property are maintained, and brought up to code by the Smiths. Leslie’s motion also included that the township would not be financially responsible to bring the buildings up to code.

A lack of support among board members caused Leslie’s motion to die, and Lambert to attempt to move on.

Hoffman continues, chaos follows

“I’m still on the agenda, I want to continue on,” Hoffman said following the motion’s failure.

“At the last meeting I attended sometime in March, Jesse (Lambert) gave us public assurance that no more action would be taken on this property until it went through the Court of Appeals,” Hoffman said. “Obviously Jesse changed his mind, because on June 29  - probably the hottest day of the year which happened to be Dylan (Smith’s) birthday,  the township went out there and cut their electric and cut their water.”

In an email message dated July 1, 2012, Code Enforcement Officer Roger Welsh addressed the electrical system at the 1031 S. Holly property.

“I believe that the power to the property has been disconnected by Consumers,” Welsh wrote. “It is my understanding that after that time, the service for the electrical was placed in the name of someone other than Holly Township, and we were unable to stop the service, which would have been the easiest and cheapest route.”

Roger Welsh


In the email, Welsh said the township was not using the electrical service to the buildings and was “a liability.”

“We simply don’t use the buildings and Building Inspector (Dave) Schang has previously expressed reservations about the quality of the electrical system – those reservations were well-founded.”

Welsh said he was instructed by Lambert to accompany a licensed electrician to the S. Holly Road property, and that Winchester had requested that he also change the locks on the home formerly occupied by the Smiths.

“We began with a cursory inspection of the entire system and how it was wired between the buildings and from the service pole,” Welsh wrote. “As we would observe every junction, (the electrician) would try to see if it was live.”

“Everything we examined had electricity running through it,” Welsh said. “The boxes were opened and unlocked, and live wires were strewn on the ground. It was obvious that these were serious and life threatening hazards.”

Hoffman said he had heard the township board say that it is here to protect the assets of the township. “Well, the most valuable asset of this township is the citizens and not once have I heard them say that we’re doing this for the citizens,” Hoffman said. “As a matter of fact, they have said on a few occasions that we’re doing this for the Smiths’ own good.”

With that, Hoffman asked Lambert, Winchester and Freeman to look into the Smith children’s eyes and explain why they were evicted on Feb. 27 in the dead of winter, and on June 29 – perhaps the hottest day of the year, disconnected the power. “You turned their off their water,” Hoffman said. “Tell them you did that for them, and then tell them why young people should respect local government, and more importantly, why don’t you tell them why they should vote for you?”

Chaos erupted among meeting-go...


Arguing among board members and members of the audience ensued as Lambert banged the gavel repeatedly to try to regain control of the meeting.

“Hey…listen up,” Lambert yelled. “I don’t want back and forth, OK?”  Lambert said the board would make a decision, and asked everyone to “enjoy the adjournment,” and to take their tempers and attitudes down a notch.

Chaos and discord resulted in the 10 minute intermission, with residents on both sides fervently arguing over the issue.


Public Comment

Holly resident Del Shoopman supported the township’s position.

“As we sit here, we’re all taxpayers, except for a few,” Shoopman said. “We’re all mortgage payers, except for a few,” he added. “I would expect those rights as opportunists of being a mortgage payer and a taxpayer and all my rights upheld from this board.”

John La Croix


Holly businessman John LaCroix said he owns three buildings in Holly, but lives in Oak Park.

“From my perspective, this is pure insanity,” LaCroix said, noting that he knows many people who are angry on both sides of this issue in Holly.

“It’s not helping the township at all,” he said. "I’m not saying you’re right, or they’re right, but I’m saying get creative, sit down in a room and figure out how to fix this the amicable way until the court makes a decision so we can stop this because I’m telling you right now, the township has much bigger problems than this.”

Timm Smith used the public comment segment to direct a question toward the township’s attorney. “You said earlier that this possession of the 10 acres – the two 5 acre parcels I have boils down to a question of title,” Smith said. “I’ve been hearing that PHH Mortgage is going to end up ultimately with the title of this because that’s the way federal regulations are set. Is that true?

“I’m not going to get into titles issues, Mr. Smith,” Need replied. “That’s in the court of appeals - we’ll let the Court of Appeals decide that issue.”

Timm Smith


Smith said he had learned of a federal regulation that gives non-legally divided property back to the last title holder – PHH Mortgage in his case. “Holly Township is using your tax dollars - $40,000 so far – to give this piece of property back to the bank that wrote this fraudulent mortgage,” he said. “If that doesn’t upset you, they’re not upholding the Land Division Act for that very reason.”

Resident Jim Manning supports the Smiths, and expressed his dismay for members of the board. “This board is trying to inflict pain on this family – we’ve had enough,” he said. “You reap what you sow in life, so good luck looking in the mirror folks, and we will run you right out of office, hopefully into a jail cell.”

“I understand electricity was cut and that’s a shame,” resident Bill Walters said. “But I do also understand that it wasn’t put in by a licensed electrician – it was not in a waterproof box, the connections were out in the open and if anybody was to get hurt, the township was liable and I commend the board for doing what it did.”

Hess Road resident Jerry Newman said it was his feeling that the board had overlooked the Smiths’ health and welfare.

“You can’t just cut off somebody’s electric and leave them out there in them temperatures – it’s just not human,” he said. “I think you ought to get working with the health department or something – there must be some sort of program to help these people out,” he added. “You can’t just leave them sitting out there in the damn heat with no electricity or water. Is this Russia or Holly, Michigan?”

Hoffman clarifies why he got involved

“To me, this has to do with property rights,” Hoffman said Thursday. “The reason our country is so strong and so great is because we protect the property rights of our citizens.”

Hoffman said it was his opinion that the Holly Township Board of Trustees is not currently providing that service – at least in the case of the Smiths. “When the local officials that are supposed to be protecting citizens’ property rights aren’t doing their jobs, then who’s going to stand up for them?” he asked. “The Smiths contacted me in February just prior to their eviction asking for my help, and when I began looking into it, I discovered that the officials that were elected to uphold the Land Division Act had failed – that’s why I got involved.”


JavaScript is disabled!
To display this content, you need a JavaScript capable browser.

Comments   

 
#1 Jesse Lambert 2012-07-20 09:44
There are several reasons I felt uncomfortable voting in favor of Mr. Hoffman's compromise.

Mr. Hoffman had a week to provide the board with something in writing. He kept his request verbal only. There are also many, many variables wrapped up in the request for a 'care taker contract'. With no additional data or information, I didn't feel comfortable moving forward with his intended solution.

Being a senior elected official with years of experience owning and maintaining properties across Oakland County, not so much as a summary plan or draft contract was afforded to the Board of Trustees. The board could have came into he meeting better prepared.

Mr. Hoffman lobbied adamantly over the telephone with Holly Township Board members up until the day of the meeting. He should be commended for his energy, but not for his diplomatic tact.

Prior to discussing his item with the board, Mr. Hoffman declared quite clearly a verbal ultimatum to the Board of Trustees. He stated he had further issues to discuss if the Board didn't agree to the initial terms. I think Ms. Mayhew covered this well under 'Hoffman continues, chaos follows'.

After adjourning the meeting in order to bring the attitudes down a notch, I asked Mr. Hoffman to take his seat and he respectfully obliged.

I don't understand how one leader can make a rational request of an entire elected board and then open with the issuance of verbal ultimatum if that body of leadership doesn't oblige the initial request.

-----

This morning I will be meeting with Mr. Timm Smith to discuss the options currently available to him.

I think that with Mr. Hoffman removed from the equation, there stands a better chance of an agreement being reached.
Report to administrator
 
 
#2 localyokel 2012-07-20 10:01
Its good to hear that the Township is planning to meet with Mr. Smith to discuss options although it seems like this tact would have worked better months and months ago. But the public is watching. I hope these elected officials see the harm and stain they have wrought on our community - its an election year and I am sure we will see some more serious scrambling begin. Whether you agree with the Smith's or not, I hope you are paying notice to how our Board handled this situation in the name of our community. Turning people out into the cold when the situation remains unresolved. Spending thousands of our tax dollars to chase a piece of property that we can do nothing with. Then turning off water and electricity during the hottest summer on record. There are children "living" there - As it was put so well in Ms. Mayhew's article, are we in Russia or Holly? I hope you are watching voters of Holly Township!
Report to administrator
 
 
#3 Jason M Hughes 2012-07-20 14:21
Local, your comment seems to imply that the township and the Smiths hadn't met on previous occassions to reach a resolution. From previous reports and comments from both the Smiths and the township, there had been previous meetings to try and find a resolution.
Report to administrator
 
 
#4 Sophia 2012-07-20 14:46
Someone should connect this family to a homelss shelter where they can get shelter and assistance.
Report to administrator
 
 
#5 Angie Lemon 2012-07-20 21:17
I attended the Holly Township meeting .....and was taken aback by all I saw and heard ! This is a very sad situation ......which seems to have no relief or clear resolution in sight. I pray that cooler heads prevail and that somehow this can be worked out in the best interest of the family and of the township residents. I wanted to let The Holly Express - Amy Mayhew .......know that I think you have been doing a woderful job with this newspaper ........and I especially appreciate the awesome job you did with this news article in particular ......this was such an emotional evening .......I assume it was very hard on you as well to stay propfessional and unbiased as you wrote this ......this wasn't about just any place ......it was about "our hometown" .......kudos to you and your paper .
Report to administrator
 
 
#6 TheDuke 2012-07-23 20:44
According to the article, the township determined that the electrical situation on the S. Holly property was a "liability" (See section in the email from Mr. Welsh.) I am wondering if this "township property" was singled out for review, or if all township properties will be subject to a similar inspection and shut down, so as to put aside any thoughts that this may have been a narrowly targeted inspection? Given the impartiality of board members, one can only assume that this inspection must have been part of a regular township inspection schedule of their properties.

Having been in the Township offices, like Inspector Shang, I have"reservations" that the office building has some electrical "liabilities" as well, which if left unattended could become a serious safety issue if not immediately inspected by Mr. Welsh and a licensed electrician. If any issues are found, then to be sure to treat everyone fairly (that should be in the board's code of ethics if it is not), Consumers Power should be contacted and the power to the offices should be shut off immediately.

Does anyone who has visited the township offices believe that the electrical situation there is up to code and would pass inspection? Do we dare risk our employees safety if there are questions or "reservations" about it?

This whole practice of inspecting the electrical systems of Township properties is an excellent idea, and should be done on all Township owned properties immediately.
Report to administrator
 
 
#7 localyokel 2012-07-25 11:07
Mr Hughes, I am aware that the Township has had ongoing communication with the Smiths pertaining to this matter however, as there has been no resolution, and the Board continues to spend township funds and make decisions that impact our community as well as this family, I find it comforting to know that they have publicly agreed to try and find a comfortable middle ground. Perhaps they will stop making knee jerk decisions since it is so close to the election.
Report to administrator
 
 
#8 Jason M Hughes 2012-07-25 13:20
That is an interesting perspective local. I would fear any board or board member that would prioritize a decision that may get them more votes over a decision that is best for the overall community.

I don't mean to say that I believe any action on either side of this particular issue is right or wrong, just that basing those decisions on what might gain the most votes over what is right is a dangerous mindset.
Report to administrator
 
 
#9 localyokel 2012-07-26 10:57
Mr. Hughes, unfortunately that is what I feel appears to be happening and I fear many of the decisions this board has made in the name of the community in regards to this matter. This whole debacle has spiraled and has become a force to be reckoned with - I dont think at the onset anyone expected this to turn into the spectacle it has become but there is a lot of damage control to do and we have seen a lot of back pedaling and double talk and no one accepting responsibility for some of the seemingly inappropriate actions (in writing and otherwise)on behalf of the board. Frankly, if it were not election time, it might not be getting as much play. It is a dangerous mindset to do anything in the "name of the people" when some of the facts make it seem to be self-serving and not in the best interest of the "people" or the family. It just makes no sense to move forward in this matter while it is still in the hands of the courts and it makes our officials look bad. Of course, this is just my humble opinion looking in.
Report to administrator
 
 
#10 Jason M Hughes 2012-07-27 12:35
Just playing devil's advocate here local, but being that there are two sides to every situation and taking the most recent developments into consideration and using them as an example (and that you had said it doesn't make sense to "move forward"): If the township doesn't disconnect the power to the property that they (the township) has been granted by the courts, knowing that the Smith's are using that electricity and that there are code violations, is ignoring this situation in the best interest of the township? If an injury occurs on that property I believe the township is liable.

In this situation I think it would be an attempt to gain favor of voters by ignoring the electrical concerns, but by disconnecting the power it is just as easy to assume the township is protecting itself as it is to assume that the township is being spiteful or trying to hurt the Smiths.

Maybe you were referring to a different event when you made the reference to attempting to move forward while the matter is in the hands of the court though.
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
©2013 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.