6th Circuit - Due Process - Code Enforcement
City building inspectors upon complaint by a tenant inspected a property and found significant violations of code. The inspectors condemned the property and provided notice of both condemnation and of potential for demolition unless the violations were corrected. The parties disputed much of what happened next regarding efforts by the property owner to avoid demolition and by the local officials to respond. The building was demolished and the property owner sued. Removed to federal court on claims of due process violations the lower court ruled for the city. On appeal, the panel agreed that the city provided notice sufficient to satisfy due process, but disagreed as to whether the Due Process Clause was satisfied. The city's officials testified in deposition that despite the code calling for a board to hear appeals of violation notices, no such board existed. Instead, the city claimed it had an informal procedure that allowed for the property owner to meet with officials and if dissatisfied, meet with the city attorney to arbitrate the issue. Long story short, the panel concluded that the city did not offer the owner a hearing required by Due Process prior to depriving the owner of a property interest. The concurrence in this case describes a bit of the history of Due Process and invites us to understand that before traditional property rights are destroyed, traditional due process ought to be satisfied. An opinion well worth reading.
McIntosh et al. v. City of Madisonville, Ky., 25a0013p-06.pdfhttps://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0013p-06.pdf
Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./
[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.orghttp://www.imla.org/
6th Circuit - Due Process - Code Enforcement
City building inspectors upon complaint by a tenant inspected a property and found significant violations of code. The inspectors condemned the property and provided notice of both condemnation and of potential for demolition unless the violations were corrected. The parties disputed much of what happened next regarding efforts by the property owner to avoid demolition and by the local officials to respond. The building was demolished and the property owner sued. Removed to federal court on claims of due process violations the lower court ruled for the city. On appeal, the panel agreed that the city provided notice sufficient to satisfy due process, but disagreed as to whether the Due Process Clause was satisfied. The city's officials testified in deposition that despite the code calling for a board to hear appeals of violation notices, no such board existed. Instead, the city claimed it had an informal procedure that allowed for the property owner to meet with officials and if dissatisfied, meet with the city attorney to arbitrate the issue. Long story short, the panel concluded that the city did not offer the owner a hearing required by Due Process prior to depriving the owner of a property interest. The concurrence in this case describes a bit of the history of Due Process and invites us to understand that before traditional property rights are destroyed, traditional due process ought to be satisfied. An opinion well worth reading.
McIntosh et al. v. City of Madisonville, Ky., 25a0013p-06.pdf<https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0013p-06.pdf>
Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
[facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./>
[logo]<https://imla.org/>
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>
