I received a copy of the CLPOC Finance Committee meeting minutes of September 14th after I returned from the court proceedings on October 3rd. I was very disturbed by the reported actions to be taken to collect "back maintenance fees" which are being legally disputed.
The CLPOC Board breached contracts with merged lot owners when settling the lawsuit brought against it by Earl Opperthauser. To ask for volunteers to mount an assault on members for not paying a bill being legally disputed can't be seen as an action taken to resolve the issue.
From the CLPOC Finance Committee Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2000:
6. A report presented by Greg shows the corporation with 204 merged lots with a total billing of $220,210 (including prior years). As of September 14, 2000 we are in receipt of $63,493 leaving an unpaid balance of $156,716 involving 149 lots. The new system of running the billings through Small Claims Court is having beneficial results except that we can only process 5 claims per week. We are presently studying the feasibility of using a collection agency or another legal avenue to assist in these collections in order to reduce our losses. The major restriction to using a collection agency is their requirement that we supply them with the social security number for each member submitted for collection which is not on record and is not assessable to the corporation. Greg also stated that the office would welcome a donation of time by two volunteers to assist in processing the paperwork.
I am hopeful that the Finance Committee and the CLPOC Board will put a halt to the collection process
before creating additional harm and costs to remedy the results of the Settlement Agreement with Earl Opperthauser.
If for some reason, the CLPOC goes forward with filings in Small Claims Court, I'd like to make sure that people are provided some information on their rights. First of all I would question whether or not
a merged lot case should be heard in small claims court at all. The counter claim to any case filed for back maintenance fees would easily exceed the maximum jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. What is the value that a merged lot owner would put on the cost to tear down their house, garage or addition? What is the value that a merged lot owner would put on the right to vote in elections that was given up under the contract that the CLPOC initiated? What is the cost to undo the real estate transactions that might not have taken place had the buyers or sellers of the property knew that the CLPOC would breach it's contract with them?
Second of all, there are matters before the 49th Judicial Circuit Court that should be considered by the CLPOC before additional collection actions are taken. The cost to undo the actions will only grow.
Here is a copy of the information I found on the Michigan Legislation website (note paragraph 4 - you have a right to not have the case heard in Small Claims Court.):
REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961
600.8408
Parties; representation; request for trial before district court judge; removal; waiver.
[M.S.A. 27a.8408
]Sec. 8408.
(1)
An attorney at law, except on the attorney's own behalf, a collection agency or agent or employee of a collection agency, or a person other than the plaintiff and defendant, except as is otherwise provided in this chapter, shall not take part in the filing, prosecution, or defense of litigation in the small claims division.
(2)
A sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation as plaintiff or defendant may be represented by an officer or employee who has direct and personal knowledge of facts in dispute. If the officer or employee who has direct and personal knowledge of facts in dispute is no longer employed by the defendant or plaintiff or is medically unavailable, the representation may be made by that person's supervisor, or by the sole proprietor, a partner, or an officer or a member of the board of directors of a corporation.
(3)
A county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district as plaintiff or defendant may be represented only by an elected or appointed officer or an employee who has direct and personal knowledge of the facts in dispute. If the officer or employee who has direct and personal knowledge of the facts in dispute is no longer an officer or employee of the plaintiff or defendant, the representation may be made by that officer's successor or that employee's supervisor, or by a member of the governing body of the county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district. In addition, a person may not represent a county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district in the small claims division unless authorized to appear in the case by the governing body of the county, city, village, township, or local or intermediate school district.
(4)
Before commencement of a trial, the plaintiff or defendant may, upon demand, require that the trial be conducted before a district court judge and not a magistrate, or may remove the case from the small claims division to the general civil division of the district court. If the parties commence a trial of the case in the small claims division, both parties waive all rights mentioned in section 8412.
History:
Add. 1968, Act 154, Imd. Eff. June 17, 1968
;--Am. 1978, Act 496, Eff. Jan. 1, 1979
;--Am. 1984, Act 272, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1984
;--Am. 1984, Act 278, Eff. Jan. 1, 1985
;--Am. 1991, Act 192, Eff. July 1, 1992
.
|
If you have any questions, send me an e-mail and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Ron Emerson
The_Emersons@centurytel.net
|