One of the most interesting speakers at the Springfield conference was Dr. Catherine Karr, who is a pediatric environmental health specialist. She reviewed a wide variety of home health hazards including lead paint, radon, mold, carbon monoxide, fire, and pests. So many of these topics intersect with property maintenance and fire prevention enforcement. She is a member of a group called PEHSU (Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units) which is a national network of academic-based centers of expertise that service health care providers, public health professionals, communities and families. Asthma, for example, is a huge health problem for children and adults and is made worse by living in homes that have mold problems and pest infestation. Illinois is included in the Great Lakes Centers’ Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit based at the University of Illinois at Chicago. All areas of the country are part of some regional unit. PEHSU is a great resource for information on all of these issues. When inspectors are dealing with a property where children live, the long term effects of the unhealthy conditions should be a top priority for enforcement.
Persons who do work without a permit or allow bedrooms in basements that are in violation of the building code risk more than fines. In a tragic case in Ann Arbor, a homeowner’s daughter died along with another person because of a fire in the basement. The owner was charged with renting without a certificate of compliance, illegal occupancy of the basement, inadequate smoke detectors, and inadequate exits from the basement by the local prosecutor. The public just doesn’t understand how building inspectors save lives.
The Chicago Tribune has taken on lenders over the devastation that has befallen neighborhoods while they sit back and let property deteriorate. I’ve noticed a phenomenon in my practice when I’ve researched properties in foreclosure that have code violations. Lately I am seeing more and more foreclosure actions that are stalled after the lender obtains a judgment of foreclosure. No sheriff sale takes place or the sale is canceled. The lender doesn’t take the steps to get the deed and tells the local government that it’s not responsible for the property even though the owner is long gone. The article in the Tribune discusses the consequences of such business practices:
Such legal maneuvers by banks, which in many cases either walk away from properties that aren’t worth selling or let foreclosure proceedings languish in an overwhelmed court system, have left thousands of dilapidated vacant houses in ownership limbo citywide.
At the same time, the financial industry is fighting against proposed legislation in Illinois that would make it responsible for the upkeep of a property once a foreclosure suit has been filed if the property is vacant.
Insurance companies can be allies in the fight for life/safety compliance. They have considerable power over property. If persons insured by the companies don’t live up to the standards of the policy, they may lose their insurance benefits. A judge in Massachusetts has ruled that an insurance company does not have to pay for a fire that occurred at a restaurant because the owner did not properly maintain a fire suppression system. The Insurance Journal reports:
At issue is an exclusion in a commercial lines policy issued to the French King restaurant in Erving, which required the restaurant owner to maintain a fire suppression system. The insurer — Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., a subsidiary of Fireman’s Fund — claimed that the fire-suppression system installed at the restaurant was obsolete, and therefore triggered the exclusion and did not require them to indemnify the restaurant.
The court agreed and ordered the restaurant to pay back the $15,000 advance given to the owner before the investigation was completed. I’ve always wished there was a separate registry of properties and their insurance companies so inspectors could alert the insurance company about dangerous conditions. (I make no comment as to whether this might violate privacy laws in some states). Most owners will act so they don’t lose their insurance unlike the owner in this case. The article said that the owner could have upgraded his system for $3,250. Unfortunately, fire inspectors have to repeatedly try and obtain compliance because of the real threat of fire while some owners only see the extra cost to themselves when asked to comply.
I recently completed a 2 month period of travel all over the Midwest doing trainings for building officials, fire inspectors, property maintenance and housing inspectors and law enforcement officers in Columbus, Ohio, East Liberty, Iowa, South Bend, Indiana, Troy, Michigan, East Peoria, IL and Sheboygan, Wisconsin. All of them are facing challenges because of the foreclosure crisis and are trying to respond with reduced resources. I want to say how much I appreciate the hospitality I received wherever I went and the enthusiasm of the participants. It gives me great hope when I see the number of inspectors who take the time to come to the classes I teach so they can enhance their skills and keep trying to improve their communities. At a time when so many public employees are feeling unappreciated and under attack, I just wanted to extend my thanks to everyone who made my trainings a rewarding experience.
It’s not unusual for one agency to stumble upon evidence that would interest another department in the local jurisdiction. Firefighters in Columbia, Pennsylvania recently found a marijuana growing operation when they responded to a fire. Police investigated and found plants growing and bags of weed. The police have to be careful before they enter a building though. Unless it’s an emergency (and the destruction of drugs is not usually considered to be one), the police cannot enter a building without consent from the owner or occupant or without a search warrant. Just because an inspector has a right to be on the premises, doesn’t mean personnel from another agency can join him or her. The information uncovered by an inspector can be communicated to the police and used as the basis for a criminal search warrant.
One of the most difficult situations I deal with as a prosecutor is trying to find someone to take responsibility for a property where it is in foreclosure, the owners have abandoned the building and the lender fails or refuses to complete the foreclosure process. Some nonprofit organizations are stepping in under those circumstances and using state laws on abandoned properties to take them over, fix them up and then sell them. One such organization is featured in an article in the Huffington Post. Unfortunately, in some states, the waiting period for action is lengthy. While the clock is running, the property continues to deteriorate. It is shocking to me that legislatures fail to address the problems these derelict properties create for communities and local government. Far too often state law protects lenders from having to take possession of these properties and maintain them prior to the foreclosure judgment even though the owners are no longer around and the mortgage document gives the lender the right to ask for possession. These nonprofits that take on this difficult task should be applauded for their efforts but there aren’t enough of them to make a dent in this horrendous problem.
I was recently contacted by someone who is gathering data on the housing market with a special interest in the health of condominium associations. He was concerned that many of them, especially those that are recent conversions, are struggling financially as more and more units are subject to foreclosure. This raises problems for inspectors. If an association falls apart. who is responsible for common area problems? I’ve had this situation happen a number of times, especially with fire code problems and building code violations. The first question that needs to be answered is how is title held regarding the common area in a condominium development? In some developments the title is held by the condo association but in others, each unit owner owns an undivided share of the common area. After that question is answered, the next one is: what does the declaration of condominium say about who or what is responsible for the upkeep and repair of the common area? Typically the association is responsible. If the association owns the common area and is responsible for its upkeep, the answer is easy. I tell the inspector to notify and cite the association if necessary. I’ve known some jurisdictions that have even helped associations get reinstated that had lapsed. However, if the common area is owned by the individual unit owners, it gets trickier. If the association is responsible for the upkeep under the declaration, then it is in control of the property and is considered an “owner” under the IPMC. However, if the association doesn’t exist, who does the inspector pursue? In that case, all of the owners are responsible and should be notified and cited if necessary. This can be a huge undertaking in a large condo complex. Sometimes following this procedure stirs up the unit owners enough to form a working condo association. It’s far easier dealing with one entity than multiple owners and the local jurisdiction should encourage the owners to follow the condominium declaration and form a viable association.
No better case can be made for rental inspections than when a terrible fire happens. In San Bernadino, California, 26 dwelling units were destroyed in a fire. When inspectors went back to check out the remaining units, over 50 code violations were found including exposed wires and other electrical problems. There were also building code violations including illegal construction and property maintenance issues. Yearly inspections uncover these problems before they become troublesome. It’s fashionable to rail against government intrusion and landlords convince their tenants they shouldn’t cooperate with building inspectors but this is an area where we know people will die if they don’t have an outside party advocating for their safety. It’s all about saving lives.
I actually escaped the snow in Chicago this week by heading up to the Region III ICC conference in Minnesota where the weather was sunny. I always have a great time at that extraordinary conference. It was great to see that attendance was very healthy and maybe we’re beginning to see a thaw in some of the gloom we’ve all been dealing with since the economy tanked. I taught Advanced Legal Aspects for Fire Code Inspectors and the inspectors asked a lot of good questions. We had a healthy discussion about post-deprivation hearings after an emergency evacuation. There’s quite a few cases now that make it clear that people (tenants and owners) who are deprived of their property rights in a building because of an emergency evacuation order, have a right to be heard after the fact at such a hearing. Most of the time no one actually appears at a hearing or files a notice appealing the order of the fire official. But, in order to meet the requirements of the fourteenth amendment, they must be given the opportunity. By keeping an appropriate record of the hearing or appeal, the local jurisdiction can easily avoid a civil rights lawsuit for depriving an individual of his or her property without due process.
