Do you need to give your City all the arguments you have against them before suing them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

legalaiu

New Member
Jurisdiction
Michigan
If you wanted to sue your city for a disagreement, if you initially made your argument one way, and they did not respond to the arguments, and you thought of other arguments meanwhile, and you want to sue them at the circuit court, do you need to show the court that you presented all your updated arguments to the city or is it ok to just sue them without showing them all the new updated arguments you have, since they refused to engage with the 1st set of arguments?

By the way, the disagreement is about whether a certain house is to be considered a rental property or not, and whether that means that it's not allowed in a single family zone.
I'm contending that it's a rental house and that it's not allowed in a single family zone, and they are denying explicitly denying that it's not a rental house, while implicitly also denying that it's not allowed in a single family zone.
 
If you're not an experienced attorney, you're doomed to failure.

If you're serious about "suing the sovereign, as in municipality", hire an attorney.

Should you insist on continuing pro se, prepare yourself for a massive legal beat down!
 
legalaiu said:
If you wanted to sue your city for a disagreement, if you initially made your argument one way, and they did not respond to the arguments, and you thought of other arguments meanwhile, and you want to sue them at the circuit court, do you need to show the court that you presented all your updated arguments to the city or is it ok to just sue them without showing them all the new updated arguments you have, since they refused to engage with the 1st set of arguments?

By the way, the disagreement is about whether a certain house is to be considered a rental property or not, and whether that means that it's not allowed in a single family zone.
I'm contending that it's a rental house and that it's not allowed in a single family zone, and they are denying explicitly denying that it's not a rental house, while implicitly also denying that it's not allowed in a single family zone.
Click to expand...

The first question I have is has the city denied you anything, like a building permit? Or is your issue that you object to someone else using their property in a way you contend is a rental? If it's the latter, then I think you'll find that you'll lack standing to sue as the city has not done anything to you, it has rejected your argument that the city should deny someone else the use of their property.

Suing the government typically requires very specific steps, including things you must do before you file the actual lawsuit. When opposing the decision of the government you typically must first exhaust all administrative remedies and in pursuing your administrative remedies you'd need to include all the evidence and arguments to the government body that is making the decision. Courts generally review the decisions of executive agencies based on the record of the matter with the agency, so any argument or evidence the city you didn't present to the city the court is probably not going to consider.

I strongly urge you to heed army judge's advice and consult an attorney who handles disputes with government agencies concerning their decisions. That consultation will let you know if you even have standing to sue or file an appeal over this matter and if you do, the attorney can tell you what's required and what it will cost. That may save you a lot of wasted money, effort, and aggravation over trying to do it yourself when you don't know whether you have a case and don't know the steps needed to succeed.
 
legalaiu said:
I'm contending that it's a rental house and that it's not allowed in a single family zone,
Click to expand...

In other words you are a NIMBY and don't want your neighbor to rent out his house.

Suing the city over it is almost guaranteed to fail.

However, if your neighbor is not complying with deed restrictions, you have the option of suing the neighbor in the hopes of getting an injunction to prevent the rental.

You'll definitely need to hire a lawyer for that.
 
legalaiu said:
By the way, the disagreement is about whether a certain house is to be considered a rental property or not, and whether that means that it's not allowed in a single family zone.
Click to expand...
This is clearly a question of zoning and of the definitions of rental property (in the zoning ordinance), and the allowed uses (as of right or conditional) in the single-family zone where the property is located. All these questions are answered in the City Zoning Ordinance. Did you read and understand the Ordinance? So, what is your argument and what are your damages?

legalaiu said:
If you wanted to sue your city for a disagreement,
Click to expand...
Anytime you want to sue the state or any subdivision of the state (and that includes cities and municipalities), you need to follow the state's Torts Claims Act. It spells out the procedures and the timing of all the notice requirements and what must be included in the notice. It will also give you an idea of what you will have to prove. And that is before any complaint is filed with a court.

Michigan's torts claim notice statute.
Not a DYI project.
 
welkin said:
Anytime you want to sue the state or any subdivision of the state (and that includes cities and municipalities), you need to follow the state's Torts Claims Act.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the procedures in state law for suing the government must be followed when filing a lawsuit, including the rules for suing the government.

However, a tort claims act, like Federal Tort Claims Act, only deals with tort claims, e.g. personal injury, negligence, malpractice, defamation, etc. Contract claims and statutory claims (like claims that the government failed to follow the law or regulations, including zoning decision appeals) are not torts and not covered by a tort claims act. The statute you linked only deals with non tort claims against the state, not cities or counties, that are brought in the state claims court.

Tort claims against either the state or its muncipalities Michigan are governed by Act 170 of 1964. While not expressly labeled as such, this is effectively Michigan's tort claims act.

Appeals of muncipality administrative zoning decisions in Michigan must be taken to the zoning board of appeals, as explained in this MSU Planning program article.

welkin said:
Not a DYI project.
Click to expand...

I agree. For nonlawyers, just finding the right provisions of state law, regulations, and rules can be a real challenge, and it's not unusual for a pro se party going up against the government to rely on a provision that doesn't apply to the type the claim he/she has, which then dooms it to failure. And even after getting over that hurdle, there is a whole lot more than the person needs to know to succeed.
 
If I eventually do file a complaint, could they just change the wordings in their ordinance to explicitly allowing what is not allowed currently? Or are they not allowed to do that?

After all, they have been updating the ordinances every few years... so they might say "if someone finds that our current ordinance disallows what we are allowing and would continue to allow, we'll just change the wordings in our ordinance so they can't say anymore that our ordinance contradicts our actual enforcing policies."
 
legalaiu said:
could they just change the wordings in their ordinance to explicitly allowing what is not allowed currently?
Click to expand...
The legislative body can always change or amend an ordinance if they follow the state's laws governing the city or municipal procedures.

You have yet to tell us what the dispute you are having is about. All we know is that you say there is a house that you claim is a rental unit and the city says it is not. You haven't told us what the zoning ordinance says about the matter and why the city says the house is not a rental.
 
legalaiu said:
If I eventually do file a complaint, could they just change the wordings in their ordinance to explicitly allowing what is not allowed currently? Or are they not allowed to do that?
Click to expand...

The city could change the ordinance even after you file a court complaint. Assuming that the change does not violate state law in some manner, it would make your lawsuit moot if the change to the zoning clearly allows for the use that the owner is making of the property.
 
legalaiu said:
Here is the whole story and what the ordinance department said and why I disagree with them:
Click to expand...

First off, I don't think you have standing to sue the city for what you are calling non-enforcement of their zoning ordinance. You are not an aggrieved party by your own writings. You are not trying to challenge the zoning ordinance. What you are challenging is the enforcement of the ordinance.

If you were a neighbor for example, living next to a converted residential property into a commercial enterprise, you may have standing to try to compel the city to enforce a no commercial enterprise in a residential zone requirement. But enforcement of zoning laws is discretionary and left to the local jurisdiction under Michigan case law, and the courts rarely intervein in such cases. To try and compel a local jurisdiction to enforce the ordinance, one would have to apply for a Writ of mandamus in the courts, something that Michigan courts rarely grant in zoning cases.
What they might say if I sue:
(and my counter-arguments)
They might say: "You don't have a standing as an aggrieved party."

My argument for having been aggrieved would be: The owner's daughter, B, incited my sister to use thousands of tuition money in a way that the condition under which it was to be paid for was not kept (by leaving home). I want to say B encouraged the misappropriation of funds. At the same time, B financially benefited by having my sister pay monthly rent towards a mortgage of a house which B would eventually inherit. If this zoning-violating house did not operate as a rental house, B wouldn't have had an incentive to incite and entice my sister to move into B's place. It was through the invalid rental operations of this house that my sister was enabled and encouraged to violate the terms under which her tuition was paid for.
Click to expand...
From you description of why you think you have standing, it is clear that if you are aggrieved, it is the daughter, B that has caused your damage and not the City.

To what end would make you whole if your daughter was removed from the house?
 
Last edited:
welkin said:
To try and compel a local jurisdiction to enforce the ordinance, one would have to apply for a Writ of mandamus in the courts, something that Michigan courts rarely grant in zoning cases.
Click to expand...

I agree. By way of explanation for the OP, writs of mandamus are granted when the government body involved has a clear duty to act under the law such that the agency has no discretion regarding the matter. Enforcement of the law nearly always involves discretion. The law doesn't require, for example, that every speeder get a ticket, that every crime reported must be investigated and prosecuted, or that every zoning violation must be enforced. When it comes to enforcement, agencies have to make all kinds of decisions regarding where to put their resources, what violations require the most attention, what kind of enforcement policy to have, etc. In matters where the agency has discretion, a court cannot step in and override the agency's decision in favor of a policy that the court thinks is better. It is not the role of the courts to determine the policy of executive agencies or legislative bodies.

As with other enforcement actions, enforcement of alleged zoning violations involves a fair degree of discretion by zoning enforcement. Courts cannot substitute their discretion for that of the agency. Courts don't decide policy.
 
As long as she lives in that house the chance of her detransitioning is nill because everyone that lives there is trans.

Also if I can do something legal against B it would serve to show the trans community that they cannot incite misappropriation of funds to incite someone to live at their house and go unscathed.

Would I have a case if we sued B?
 
legalaiu said:
As long as she lives in that house the chance of her detransitioning is nill because everyone that lives there is trans.

Also if I can do something legal against B it would serve to show the trans community that they cannot incite misappropriation of funds to incite someone to live at their house and go unscathed.

Would I have a case if we sued B?
Click to expand...
You have no standing to sue B.
 
Zigner said:
You have no standing to sue B.
Click to expand...
Certainly, if his daughter was over the age of majority when she moved in. That was her decision to do so. I doubt daddy would want to sue his daughter over a claim of fraud for the tuition money.

There is no back door to stopping your daughter from being who she wants to be. Let it go and move on with your life and hopefully, keep your daughter in it.
 
Last edited:
legalaiu said:
Is there no way to sue just B and not the daughter?

Is encouraging someone to commit a crime not a crime?
Click to expand...
What crime was someone encouraged to commit? I guess you don't see your daughter as an adult, free to make up her own mind about where to live or if she wants T treatment. She is not under your control anymore.
 
The crime would be misappropriation of funds.

Since she really wanted the tuition money, given the policies of her parents what she could have done was wait until college, or if she wanted to try the applying for independent status, she would have had to drop out of the semester and then apply for the status.

Since she did not want to delay her graduation and really wanted to attend the Fall 2023 semester, if she wanted tuition for that semester then the fair thing to do would be to abide by the condition under which the tuition was given.

She had second thoughts about leaving, and it was B and other friends who insisted on her leaving the house (and of course, not just leaving without taking the tuition money, but waiting until after the tuition has been already paid, and then leaving).

If B and other friends were saying she should just drop out of the semester for now and leave home, then I wouldn't have problem with that legally. But the friends were encouraging her to leave after the tuition was paid, against the will of the parents who paid that tuition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top