Arrest and jail for not complying with discovery order?

[nobk4me]

First, this is not a debt case.  It is a case about code enforcement and housing conditions.  And it's not my case, it's for a friend.  This is in Ohio.

 

The city filed a civil lawsuit against the homeowner.  The city requested discovery, in the form of coming to his home to inspect and photograph the exterior and interior of the property.  The homeowner objected to this, citing privacy concerns.

 

The city filed a motion to compel discovery, which was granted.  (The homeowner did oppose this, citing constitutional case law on privacy in the home.)  This is from the online docket:

 

Journal Entry Filed: It is the order of this court that plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is granted. Further ordered <defendant> to contact City Law Dept to schedule inspection and photographs of the property and interior spaces of any building or structures, at a mutually convenient time no later than Aug 30, 2013. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions. It is so ordered.

 

The defendant failed to contact the law department.  The city has  filed an motion to show cause, and want the homeowner arrested and jailed, and fined $250.

 

Pretty draconian, IMO.  The whole thing is draconian, and essentially a modern-day witch hunt.

 

Can they actually do this?

 

[Clydesmom]

 

Can they actually do this?

 

 

Yes.  At the point they sued him and won their motions then privacy is no longer the issue.  I don't know what violations he has but if it is that bad that he has come to  the attention of the city then it is very serious.

 

 

Pretty draconian, IMO.  The whole thing is draconian, and essentially a modern-day witch hunt.

 

 

I disagree.  Property that is in such a state of disrepair and lacking up keep to the point that the city has to get involved (and it has to be PRETTY BAD for them to do that) is a danger to those living in it and around it.  

 

There is nothing draconian about this.  More than likely the city issued several warnings, notices, and orders of what needed to be done for them to close the case and none of it was done.  Then they sued.  Your friend was given several opportunities to clean things up and then two opportunities for due process.  If he refuses to comply with a court order he is subject to the same potential consequences that anyone is who defies the court.  

 

Sadly, my brother lives with a woman who is mentally ill (actually they both are) and they are hoarders both garbage and animals.  Despite numerous complaints to the county by the neighbors it took 5 years for the city to get involved and after a year of her ignoring their citations to clean the home up and reduce the number of animals they have finally sued to take possession of the property and seize it.  

 

It takes a LONG time for a city to get to the point of lawsuit and a lot of ignoring by the homeowner.  

 

Why is it you believe he should not have to comply with the court order?

[admin]

Scary!

[KentWA]

Clydesmom is seeing one side of this and I have to say that based on what you have posted there can really be no clear answer. Although the situation can be as she is pointing out, I have seen very draconian code enforcement actions. Recently in a city not far from here one family was subjected to a SWAT team raid, almost daily code enforcement visits, building inspections, and finally a suit for code enforcement. The problem with all this was the family was endangering the neighbors and lowering property values by...Growing vegetables in the flower beds in their front yard. They had to repeatedly appeal to a higher court on discovery orders, injunctions, etc. since the "judge" was a local boy and did what the city wanted. The appeals court slapped down the city several times and finally the family won an injunction against the city and a whole lot of cash.

 

Not every story is as it seems and I believe we need more info.

[KentWA]

All that being said the proper course of action when you do not agree with a discovery order is an appeal, not to ignore it. Yes you can be tossed in jail for not complying with a court order.

[kutuzov]

It's very odd, it will really depend on what they are suing for and if your friend got a legit defense, like @KentWA said growing veggies on your front yard is nothing to be ashamed of, in fact my grand uncle did that until the day he died, and never was told that he could not, should not grow them, but every city is different.

[Seadragon]

Clydesmom is seeing one side of this and I have to say that based on what you have posted there can really be no clear answer. Although the situation can be as she is pointing out, I have seen very draconian code enforcement actions. Recently in a city not far from here one family was subjected to a SWAT team raid, almost daily code enforcement visits, building inspections, and finally a suit for code enforcement. The problem with all this was the family was endangering the neighbors and lowering property values by...Growing vegetables in the flower beds in their front yard. They had to repeatedly appeal to a higher court on discovery orders, injunctions, etc. since the "judge" was a local boy and did what the city wanted. The appeals court slapped down the city several times and finally the family won an injunction against the city and a whole lot of cash.

 

Not every story is as it seems and I believe we need more info.

I agree with you KentWA, The very act of Code Inforcement is a witch hunt but there are times when it is appropriate. I can not agree that the hoarder issue can be just where a city comes in and does draconian things. I believe they do have resources available for that specific instance.

 

As for other enforcement actions when they see several code violations they usually infer that something worse can be going on on the property. These instances sometimes involve production of drugs, maybe situations like the couple who kept the mentally handicapped kids in cages, or other matters where later we would say "Damn why didn't they go in there sooner.

 

Personally, I am for the constitution, and for privacy, but Code enforcement is for protection of the neighbors from dangerous conditions. We have however, seen the government abuse that mechanism in the past, to attempt to take property.

 

In this case, I am on the fence, perhaps if your friend files a gag order, and seals the case that would be appropriate. If it is a matter of a persons "collecting habits" the city will stopped from disclosing to everyone, however if illegal activity is going on it would be best for them to stop.

[HotWheels96]

I've seen and heard many cases in California where the city, county, etc. decided they wanted the land where homes were and in order to get the property from the few opposers, used eminent domain statutes to force owners into relinquishing THEIR property. Just because the government wants something, doesn't mean they are entitled to it, and unfortunately eminent domain has opened the door for draconian possibilities.

I agree with admin, it's incredibly frightening.

[UCL]

Living in a society ruled by laws means obeying court orders. Anything else is anarchy and corruption, as is the case in many countries around the world with citizens less fortunate than we are.

If you disagree with a court order, you appeal. That's what appellate courts are for. They even have the power to issue immediate stays, on an emergency basis. I got to do that once for a client. The appellate court conducted oral argument with just 30 minutes notice to the lawyers, and we each had to call in and argue on our cellphones! The point is, THATS what you do if you disagree with a judge. Not disobey the order and then wonder whether you might go to jail (which your friend might).

[Clydesmom]

I can not agree that the hoarder issue can be just where a city comes in and does draconian things. I believe they do have resources available for that specific instance.

 

As for other enforcement actions when they see several code violations they usually infer that something worse can be going on on the property. 

 

You would think that counties have resources but they do not.  Most don't.  A few might but really after the initial discovery they cite or warn the homeowner it is a violation and to clean up the property and then give a time frame.  If all the warnings fail then they sue. If the suit is successful then all the county does is come in and clean up the property then bill the owner for the clean up.  If the owner does not pay then they sue to take possession of the home in the same way the state does if you don't pay your property taxes.

 

I would agree that if this is a small rural area that the good ole' boy network could be at work to disrupt this person's home.  However, if this is a large city or suburban area it is far less likely.  They just don't have the time and staff to harass someone over the turnips in their flower bed.  

The MOST common thing that gets a home on the radar that triggers a demand for a complete inspection is a serious safety hazard outside the home leading to the reasonable suspicion that the home is not fit for human habitation.  In my brother's situation we were STUNNED that despite the fact the entire front door frame was literally about to fall over due to rot that the city had not intervened years earlier.  When they finally did intervene it was the same situation:  warnings demanding a full property inspection that the owner ignored.  Got hauled into court (which my brother had to defend a criminal charge because she blamed him for the plumbing not working) then ignored all deadlines set to improve the property so that it was livable.  Now they are out and the county has moved to take the home.  It took YEARS and yes, she was threatened with jail if she didn't allow the inspection.  It was only when the cops showed up that she let the inspector in.

 

NONE of the debate here though changes the fact that if the friend ignores an order from the court they can be arrested for failure to comply.  As an example related to this board:  if you are served with a subpoena to submit to a debtor's exam and don't comply under the same theory it is an "invasion of privacy" you could be subject to arrest for contempt of court.  The bigger issue in this thread is that there is a court order demanding compliance.  If they have been fighting pro-se now would be the time to get a lawyer if jail is an imminent threat.

[BV80]

@Clydesmom

 

I would agree that if this is a small rural area that the good ole' boy network could be at work to disrupt this person's home.  However, if this is a large city or suburban area it is far less likely. 

 

The "good ole' boy network" exists in big cities just as it does in rural areas.  It's not just about resources.  It's about who wants what, who they are, who they know, and how much money they're willing to spend (even if that money is "under the table").

[KentWA]

I agree, in fact it is the bigger urban and suburban areas that have been the worst like Oak Park, MI and Orlando, FL.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/garden/gardeners-fight-with-neighbors-and-city-hall-over-their-lawns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/College-Park-man-fights-to-keep-vegetable-garden-in-front-yard/-/1637132/17319262/-/14pb6cjz/-/index.html

 

However as I said above, fighting city hall that has a court order in hand will only work if you go to higher courts and get an order to the contrary. The two cases cited above 

[Spikey]

I'm rather interested in what the case actually is rather than speculating that it's a hoarding situation or some other such nonsense. Government corruption does exist though, I've seen and dealt with it first hand as part of my real life career.

[nobk4me]

Thank you for your replies.

 

This is a case of an older person who has lived in this house for years.  The house needs repairs.  But the biggest problem is a yuppie moved next to him, knowing what the condition of the property was.  And then complained to the city.

 

My view is, if they didn't like the condition of the property, then they shouldn't have moved there. 

 

And, there is discretion in how cities enforce these matters.  For many years in a neighboring community, there was the "sheep lady."  She had been there for decades, and her yard was messy, with all those sheep that had eaten the grass down to the bare ground.  But her city left her alone, even after her house burned and she was living in her car.  She has passed away, and now the sheep are gone.

 

My view, from an admitted libertarian/anarchist* perspective, is that private property rights should trump government powers, especially over mala prohibita matters like this.

 

And, time solves the problem, as with the sheep lady.  Life is short, and the person the yuppies find offensive won't live there forever.

 

Unfortunately, the person in question is poor and can't afford an attorney.

 

And, the city in question has codes for external property maintenance.  Hence, I believe the discovery request for the interior of the property is improper and excessive.

__________________

 

* "Anarchist" here does not mean one who promotes chaos and violence.  It means one who favors no government.  Because all power corrupts.

[BV80]

@nobk4me

 

I think your friend needs an attorney.  Considering this is about private property rights, I wonder if the ACLU would be interested?

[nobk4me]

I have suggested he contact the ACLU.  I don't know if he has followed up on that.

[bmc100]

For a city or town to send an inspector to survey the property, a person would have to file a complaint with the city or town. Unfortunately, some people feel that everyone should keep their homes or yards in prestine conditions. Or in the case of a neighborhood with a homeowners association, the bylaws of the association need to be adhered to.

 

Again it depends upon how much the person is complaining, will prompt specific measures by the city.

[Spikey]

@bmc100 Depends on the city as well and if the person complaining has any influence at City Hall. I grew up in a town that had a grass height limit and you'd get fined if they caught you. 

[KentWA]

I know we are drifting from the intent and focus of this board, but I wanted to add something.

 

Whatever the view on personal rights and a possible attempt to bully a senior around, the first proper course is the courts and that means an appeal. The only other way to rein in politicians that may be high on power is either the threat of loss of money or publicity. If you think you have something that would outrage ordinary people, then start with the publicity. Letters to the editors, press releases, start a Facebook page about it and get everyone you know to like it. Then start regular updates a couple of times a day so people will talk about it and it gets even wider exposure.

[nobk4me]

KentWA,

 

I have also suggested to the person that going to the news media may be the best angle here.  I can understand why he would be hesitant.  But this individual is in serious legal trouble and has to do something.  Unfortunately, I think his approach is "head in the sand." 

 

And that is one of the reasons I started this thread.  Hoping that the discussion here will wake him up.

 

Thanks to all for responding.

[Clydesmom]

This is a case of an older person who has lived in this house for years.  The house needs repairs.  But the biggest problem is a yuppie moved next to him, knowing what the condition of the property was.  And then complained to the city.

 

And, the city in question has codes for external property maintenance.  Hence, I believe the discovery request for the interior of the property is improper and excessive.

 

If this were not someone who is elderly I would agree.  If you want to be 40 years old (like my brother) and live like a hermit in deplorable conditions so be it but at the point the elderly are at risk someone needs to assess the need for intervention.  There are far too many elderly living in deplorable conditions that are at risk and in dire need of help than we would care to admit.  If the house truly needs repairs that are that visible from the outside then the county has a reasonable suspicion that there is an acute need for repairs internally as well.  There ARE codes for internal maintenance regarding working utilities, working plumbing and electrical etc.  

 

Since you were not a party to the court hearings where an inside inspection was ordered you cannot say what happened that triggered this level of concern by the government beyond the neighbor complaining. Has it occurred to you that Social Services for Adults has been brought in because this person is believed to be at risk both due to poor condition of the property but health concerns as well?  

 

 

Unfortunately, the person in question is poor and can't afford an attorney.

 

If this person is poor they may be in more need of assistance.  Instead of arguing about government influence how about contacting their pastor to see if the congregation can assist with getting the property up to shape?  How about organizing a clean up and repair weekend to help them out?  

 

I hear A LOT of talk about what the government should NOT be doing but I don't see you suggesting ANYTHING that friends, family neighbors could be doing to assist them outside of court.  10:1 odds the court would back down if the community rallied around this poor soul who clearly needs someone's help.

 

 

My view, from an admitted libertarian/anarchist* perspective, is that private property rights should trump government powers, especially over mala prohibita matters like this.

 

What saddens me most is that you are more concerned with your libertarian/anarchist view and what to do about the government than an elderly person who truly might be at risk and needs someone's help in a very real way and by that I do NOT mean standing on a soap box screeching the government shouldn't be involved. I would hate to think this person would die in that home because no one bothered to help make sure their water, electricity, plumbing and other basic necessities of daily living were available to them.

[Spikey]

The one thing that's still an unknown based on the OPs provided information is if the issue is aesthetic or life/safety/health. If it's peeling paint and a few loose boards that's one thing, it's another if it's a safety issue.

[BV80]

@Clydesmom

 

What saddens me most is that you are more concerned with your libertarian/anarchist view and what to do about the government than an elderly person who truly might be at risk and needs someone's help in a very real way and by that I do NOT mean standing on a soap box screeching the government shouldn't be involved. I would hate to think this person would die in that home because no one bothered to help make sure their water, electricity, plumbing and other basic necessities of daily living were available to them.

 

You're jumping to conclusions and making an unfair assumption.  I'm sure you're familiar with a definition of "assume".  It makes an "a$$" out of "u" and "me".  Although I would assert that in this case, the a$$ would be neither me or the OP.

 

1.  The fact that the OP started this thread indicates that he cares about his friend.

 

2.  The OP did not state that his friend has such problems as you've described.

 

3.  If his friend does live in such conditions, you don't know whether or not the OP has tried to help alleviate those conditions.

[nobk4me]

_Clydesmom,

 

_{I hesitate to get into a flame war with you, but to clarify some things:}

 

_{To the best of my knowledge, there is no social services/ senior services involvement here.  I do not believe this person is at risk of dying in their home for lack of electricity or water.}

 

_{I agree it would be great if a church or neighbors could help.  In fact, that is what should have been done: instead of complaining to the city, the neighbor should have offered to help.}

 

_{This is a legal forum, and this person is in serious legal trouble. Hence this posting.  If you are thrown in jail, it's kind of hard to do anything else, like painting your house.}

 

_{And, sorry if you don't like my libertarian views.  I don't much like your statist views.  I don't agree that you lose your constitutional rights when you turn 65.  And, this case sets a terrible precedent in this city.  If they can do this to this individual, they can do it to anyone.  The city claims to be enforcing external property maintenance codes.  Which will be an entry into the interior of  everyone's house, if a neighbor doesn't like your property.  .} 

[HotWheels96]

The very concept that the government can come in and take what belongs to a citizen is beyond scary, and to try to rationalize why that would be allowed is something FAR worse. I agree that there's a lot of assumptions being made, and it seems rather ridiculous to mention what should have been done, it wasn't, so leave it at that.