Posted by Charlie Fleetham on 23 Jan, 2014
Category: No category
Here is the January 9 CAC Meeting Summary. Please use BaseCamp for any questions or comments. Thanks!
Comments
Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:
I had asked that the record of the 9JAN meeting be corrected due to the following email exchange. The attached meeting summary only partially addressed the following email exchange. Please review. In addition, please take the time to review this case.
Mr. Fleetham, Lori, please post the PDF of this case on BaseCamp.
Subject: RE: Request for more info on case mentioned at 9Jan CAC meeting
Frank and Judy – both of you asked for a copy of the case I mentioned.
The case I referenced at the January 9th CAC meeting is Laisy vs. City of Shaker Heights, 33 Ohio Misc 2d 3 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Cuyahoga County) (1986). It is a decision from an Ohio trial court – the equivalent of the Washtenaw County (22nd Circuit) Circuit Court in Ann Arbor – so it has no precedential value, even in Ohio (sorry for the legal talk there – but that means any other court is free to disagree or agree with the analysis and that the decision is limited to the facts and circumstances of the case it decides). Yes, the case referenced in the footnote of my November 25thmemo is the same case. I did not find any other case that reached the same or a similar conclusion.
Re-reading the case, I realize it does not actually say that the couple involved is elderly; that was my extrapolation – perhaps incorrect - based on the age of their property, how long they had lived there, etc.
A copy of the case is attached.
Abigail Elias, Chief Assistant City Attorney | City of Ann Arbor, Michigan | mailto:aelias@a2gov.org |Telephone numbers: Office: (734) 794-6170 ext. 41888 | Direct: (734) 794-6188| Internal extension: 41888| Fax: (734) 994-4954 | Cell: (734) 320-7953 | address: 301 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | mail address: P.O. Box 8647, Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8647.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this transaction is intended only for the individual or entity named above. It may be legally privileged and confidential. If you have received this information in error, please notify me immediately and delete this transmission and any other documents, files and information transmitted herewith. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or its contents is strictly prohibited.
A mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its original dimensions. OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Subject: Request for more info on case mentioned at 9Jan CAC meeting
Ms.Elias,
Thanks for your presentation at the CAC meeting last night.
During your presentation you mentioned a case where a judge stopped a mandatory FDD because it was too burdensome to the elderly owner involved. Could you send me an email with a pdf of the case and the case citation? Thanks
Is this the same same case from trial court case from Ohio that you mentioned in your previous communication to the CAC, but did not discuss?
Thanks in advance
Frank Burdick
CAC Citizen Volunteer
Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:
Will the 9JAN meeting VIDEO be posted on the website? At what point in the meeting did the VIDEO taping commence? Was any of the legal presentation recorded?
Charlie Fleetham on 24 Jan, 2014:
The tail end of the legal presentation was recorded. I will obtain an exact start time and load date today.
Comments
Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:
Frank Burdick on 24 Jan, 2014:
Charlie Fleetham on 24 Jan, 2014: