The issue on appeal was whether Howell, through its enforcement of the Ordinance, violated Shoemaker’s procedural and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Shoemaker and Howell appealed. In November 2011, Shoemaker brought suit against Howell in federal district court. In all, Shoemaker was charged $600 for his violations of the Ordinance - $300 for the grass cutting and $300 in fines. Howell then hired a private contractor on two occasions to cut the grass, and charged Shoemaker for the cost of doing so. After receiving numerous notices, Shoemaker still refused to mow. Shoemaker then protested by refusing to mow the curb strip. Shoemaker claimed that, when he protested the tree’s removal, city employees told him “that’s not your property, you have no say on what goes in or out of there.” Problems between the parties began when Shoemaker raised issue with Howell’s landscaping project that resulted in a tree that Shoemaker planted being removed (against his wishes), and nine new saplings being planted. Violations result in a fine as well as costs that the city incurred by having a contractor remedy the violation. Howell, like most communities, has an ordinance that requires property owners to keep their lawn below a certain height. Shoemaker alleged, but the Sixth Circuit disagreed, that Howell’s actions violated his procedural and substantive due process rights. Shoemaker refused to cut that area because, he argued, that it was not his responsibility to do so. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently overturned a district court decision and ruled in favor of Howell in connection with fines and maintenance costs charged to Shoemaker for maintaining an area of lawn between the curb and sidewalk. But that’s exactly what happened in a case involving a homeowner, David Shoemaker, and the City of Howell. Disputes over unkempt lawns sometimes lead to shouting matches between neighbors, but rarely do they end up in the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
