Law Blog

June of 2005. Mariah Carey’s We Belong Together was number 1 on the Billboard charts. Batman Begins was the number 1 movie at the box office, for the second week in a row. The U.S. Supreme Court had just decided a case called Kelo v. City of New London.

This was one of those rare Supreme Court cases that grabbed the public’s attention.

And why not? Its facts hit close to home for a lot of people: private homes and small businesses were bought by the government, without the owners’ consent in some cases, and demolished, in order to build a new business district (with a corporate campus for the Phizer drug company being the centerpiece), with the hopes of revitalizing an economically depressed city. Some owners brought their case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the government’s eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”) did not extend to the taking of private property, for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (in this case, Phizer and some private developers), and that “public use” meant that the land taken must actually be used and owned by the public.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, disagreed, and found that the taking served a “public purpose”, in that the new development would attract businesses, create jobs, and increase tax revenue, which would be used to expand or maintain public services. As a result, the taking went forward, the last few holdouts were removed, and the complex was built.

The reaction to this case was almost universally negative, across the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians argued that it allows governments to take private property for almost any reason, with barely a pretense of the taking serving some public necessity. Liberals argued that the decision amounts to a handout to any big private developer which happens to have some political connections. In short, the decision made almost nobody happy. As a result, many states passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain by local governments.

Being almost 5 years old, this case hasn’t garnered much attention lately, until now. It was just announced that Phizer is closing the facility that was the center of this dispute, taking with it 1,400 jobs, and leaving a vacant office park and a bunch of empty lots where homes and businesses used to be.

What does this say about the merits of the Kelo decision? Well, from a strictly legal standpoint, not much. The Supreme Court, if it ever decides to revisit the issues raised in Kelo, would probably say that it doesn’t matter what happens after the fact, even if the taking ends up not benefiting the public in any significant way. After all, developers and governments can’t see the future.

As a practical matter, this might be an indication that governments aren’t very good at making these kinds of decisions.

However, if LegalMatch case statistics from the last 12 months are any indication, the average person probably has little reason to fear the government swooping in and condemning their property. According to our data, relatively few clients sought lawyers for eminent domain issues in the last year. Of those, a plurality of cases are still in their early stages (the property has been appraised or the government has made an initial offer to buy). At this point, it is far from a sure thing that a taking will actually occur.

This may reflect more the changed state of the economy (not too good, in case you haven’t noticed), and less a governmental policy switch on the use of eminent domain.  Stay tuned.

“Murder.”  “Unnatural.”  “Frightening.”

Those are the adjectives that the neighbors of British couple Caroline and Steve Cartwright use to describe the couple’s sex life.  Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.  More specifically, the neighbors have been complaining that the noise keeps them up at all hours of the night, thus causing them to oversleep in the morning and make them late for work.  The problem happens almost every night.

So what do they do about this problem?  The neighbors decided to charge the wife with noise violations and seek an abatement, which they subsequently won.  The noisy couple appealed, but despite their best arguments that their Human Rights were being violated, their appeal was denied.  Since the initial ruling, Caroline has been found to be in violation of the noise abatement order three times.

Aside from the humor of this situation, there are some interesting legal issues dealing with noisy neighbors.  According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, American consistently rate noise ahead of traffic and crime as their primary reason for wanting to move.  LegalMatch has a helpful recommendation for dealing with the problem of unreasonably noisy neighbors: approach them about the problem before seeking legal recourse.

I totally agree with this approach and the rationale that friendly communication should be used before the police and the courts get involved.  After all, theses are your neighbors and if you can salvage a friendship or at least a peaceful relationship then you should try.   There are also simple solutions such as caulking and sealing the edges of windows, doors, and outlets that face the noise source.

If that still doesn’t work, then you may be forced to hire a lawyer to seek your own noise abatement and/or money damages.  So for all you readers who have annoying neighbors who start construction too early, let their dogs bark at all hours, and have loud late-night parties, just think how much worse it can be!

I was thinking the other day how there are a lot of things that I don’t know.  For example, I don’t know why the staff at Chipotle constantly puts cilantro in my burrito despite how much I tell them I don’t want it (though from the looks of it, that place has got a whole other set of problems).  I don’t know why $50 shampoo is better than the generic stuff I get at Walgreens because it works just fine despite what my sisters tell me, seeing as how my hair has yet to fall off or cause me to contract cancer.  I also don’t know why I occasionally see a squiggly line in my eye fluid.  The list goes on and on, and continuing it any further in this post will do nothing but increase my already growing depression.

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

Like most Americans, I’m not rich.  And neither are my parents, nor were my grandparents, or my great grandparents.  In fact, I’m pretty sure I might be the descendent of thieves and gangsters.  At least that’s what I tell people because it sounds a lot cooler than saying I come from a line of farmers.

Anyway, like a lot of people in my economic bracket, no one in my family has ever experienced the joy of property ownership.  We were born renters and will likely die renters –  hopefully not me though (this law stuff better pay off).  And also like most people not coming from inherited wealth, previous generations of my family didn’t have the best education in the world, if any, as I’m sure most countries with a dictatorship government probably don’t want their citizens developing a mind of their own.

What happens when you put all of this together?  You get a long line of people with only, at best, a tenuous understanding of their rights.  Not to mention an innate distrust of authority or that authority’s ability to protect them.

It’s no surprise then why so many people in this country have no idea what their rights are as tenants.  Though it’s likely that a lot of people have a natural sense of what is right and what is wrong, for some reason when it comes to an injustice being perpetrated against them as a renter, these people are more inclined to let those things slide for fear of rocking the boat and suffering some incredibly painful consequence from their almighty landlord.

Get hit by a car and chances are you’ll likely want the driver who hit you brought before justice and sued in civil court.  But if the heat in your apartment is broken or your plumbing is backed up and your shower lacks water pressure, then for some reason you can live with it.  Aside from the obvious disparity between getting dinged by a car versus having to take cold showers (I’ll try to make more equal comparisons in the future), the distinction doesn’t make much sense, huh?

Now the terms in least agreements vary from property to property, so you might not always have a legitimate dispute (though that’s not to say it’s not possible to sue for almost anything these days).  In general, all states in the country generally have some law or statute in place ensuring that tenants are allowed the right to reside in a property free from health and safety hazards, as well as being of livable standards.  Note that the latter condition is very broad and open to much interpretation.  Depending on the state, it can sometimes favor the tenant or the landlord.

Recent case statistics from LegalMatch indicate that citizens from poorer states, such as Maryland, file, on average, over 70 percent less claims alleging tenant rights violations than people from wealthier states, such as California.  From an optimist’s point of view one might think that there are less renter rights violations in those states.  However, from a more realistic perspective, such violations are probably just as prevalent everywhere you go in the country.

So the lesson here is that you shouldn’t be afraid to rock the boat.  You have rights as a renter and should exercise them.  And if you really need it, sit down with a good tenant’s rights attorney.

It’s been said before, but it bears repeating ad infinitum: if you wouldn’t say it in real life, don’t say it on the Internet.

The popular assumption among the general public seems to be that some special body of law applies on the internet that doesn’t apply in real life. This assumption, as some people have learned the hard way, is incorrect. While there has been much debate over the particulars of how certain areas of the law should apply online, there’s never been any serious debate as to whether it applies.

Enter Amanda Bonnen. She is being sued by Horizon Group Management on a theory of libel for a “tweet” in which she made an offhand complaint about mold in her apartment. According to the complaint, the statement about mold in the apartment is, of course, completely false, and caused irreparable damage to Horizon’s reputation.

This may or may not be true, and that’s not what makes this case interesting. What does make it interesting is how this statement was made, followed by the lawsuit, and the public reaction to it.

It is entirely possible that Ms. Bonnen’s statement was false, and that it did, in fact, cause some damage to Horizon’s reputation. In that case, the lawsuit has merit, and Horizon should, as a legal matter, prevail.

But if they were acting to vindicate their reputation, they could not have gone about it in a worse way. A search on Twitter’s website for “Horizon Group” reveals that almost everyone who has heard about this matter is not very sympathetic with their cause. Besides some childish insults flung at the company (my personal favorite describing Horizon employees engaged in unsavory acts with barnyard animals), and some creative spellings of the word “frivolous,” one can see that many people now assume that Horizon has moldy apartments, whether that assumption is true or not.

So, what have we learned from all of this? Well, everyone involved should have learned some valuable lessons. First off, Ms. Bonnen has learned that if you wouldn’t say something in person, you shouldn’t say it online (as it turns out, there are a lot of people on the Internet who might read what you’ve written). Horizon has learned that filing a lawsuit is not automatically the best way to deal with a problem.