A homeowner who made a federal case out of a lawn-mowing dispute with the city of Howell found himself on the short end of the blade.

A federal court recently ruled against David Shoemaker.

The dispute began in August 2011 after Shoemaker stopped mowing a right-of-way area near his house as a protest. Court documents indicate Shoemaker was upset a tree he planted there was removed and replaced during a citywide street-improvement project.

The city twice hired a contractor to mow the strip, which lies between the street and sidewalk. Howell billed Shoemaker $600 for the service and fines, prompting his suit.


In Wednesday's 2-1 ruling, handed down in the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, judges overturned Shoemaker's previous victory in federal District Court and sent the case back with instructions for dismissal.

"We're waiting to see what happens next, but we're very pleased with the Court of Appeals' decision," Howell City Manager Shea Charles said.

Information wasn't immediately available on whether Shoemaker would pursue the case further. He no longer lives in the city.

Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman rejected Shoemaker's argument that the city owned the property and could not force him to maintain it, a contention central to his earlier court victory.

"Under Michigan law, Shoemaker technically owned the property at all relevant times, and the city simply possessed a right-of-way for public use," he wrote. "No fundamental right is impacted by the ordinance's requirement that he mow and maintain that land."

Judge Jeffrey Sutton concurred.

But in a 13-page dissent, Judge Eric Clay said the city had continually asserted it owned the land and deprived Shoemaker of due process.

The city's actions were "arbitrary and capricious," Clay wrote, in removing the tree, replacing it with seedlings and then "extracting $600 from his mortgage holder ... for his failure to maintain land over which he apparently had zero control."


In a November 2013 ruling, federal District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff said the city's ordinance violated "the right not to be forced by a municipal government to maintain municipal property."


Read or Share this story: