Written by Tanya Terry
In a courtroom full of mostly Hasselbring supporters, with some people watching the proceedings from the lobby, District Court Judge Jessica Hammon ruled on February 20 in favor of the City of Flint. Hammon, a judge with the 67th District Court of Michigan, said the City is able to evict the nonprofit that runs Hasselbring Senior Center March 3.
In court previously, Hammon allowed extra time for the Flint City Council to approve a lease between the City of Flint and the nonprofit.
Although meetings of the council members took place, at the meeting specifically designated to approve such a lease there were only four council members who showed up. Therefore, no action could be taken.
“The court takes judicial notice that there was no movement…” said Hammon in her courtroom.
She allowed the attorney for each side to make brief statements before she gave her ruling, adding no one had filed anything with the court since the last time they were in session on the matter.
Attorney Joseph Kuptz, who was representing the City of Flint, stated there was a city council committee meetings on February 5, 2025. There was a city council meeting on February 10. Kuptz also noted there was a special city council meeting on February 17 where the only item on the agenda was an attempt to reintroduce the proposed Hasselbring lease that had been before council previously. Additionally, Kuptz told the judge on February 19, there had been a city council committee meeting.
“Judge it’s my understanding that the defendants in this case may make a claim that the City of Flint lacks some type of standing to bring this lawsuit,” said Kuptz. “I would say this is a nail against the MCR2.116C5, where the issue of standing must be raised in the party’s first responsive pleading.”
Kuptz said there was no issue about that raised in the defendant’s first responsive pleading.
Harrell D. Millhouse, one of the attorneys representing the Hasselbring Center, said the City had decided not to cooperate and did schedule meetings.
“But if there’s not a full party there, they can’t meet,” he added. “They only had four people; so they couldn’t meet…I don’t know how many meeting they had, but I know for the one they specifically had to cover this issue, they didn’t have a quorum.”
The judge asked Millhouse if he believed the council members who did not attend the meeting were making a statement.
“Yes, there making a statement,” answered Millhouse. “But the statement is saying this: We don’t have a quorum. We’re not going. We don’t know. We’re going to make sure the judge is going to be the deciding vote to give us what we want. But, we’re saying we should not have to go through that. We’re saying that the council should be the ones to make that decision.”
“The City needs authority,” Attorney Richard Sabo, representing Hasselbring, stated.
Sabo said he did not believe the City had that authority and asked for at least a one week period of time to brief and to come back.
“I don’t know what authority they’re relying on,” said Sabo.
Kuptz said the mayor is the head of the executive branch under Charter Section 4101 and that in this case “this is one of those powers that is just assumed in the powers of the chief executive office.” He added there was no ordinance or charter provision that says the contrary and said the City Attorney’s Office could execute the Notice to Quit.
Sabo said Kuptz statement was “overwhelming generic.”
Hammon stated that before the possibility of a trial, she must determine if there was a triable issue of fact.
“It was clear last time we were in court that I didn’t think there was a triable issue of fact, under the statutes of the State of Michigan,” said Hammon. “I still don’t think that there is.”
“I agree with the City,” said Hammon. “We all learned in Basic Government Class that the executive branch has the authority to do many things.”
Hammon noted her decision is appealable, however.
Sabo indicated an appeal would be filed.
The City of Flint issued the following statement following the decision:
“The City of Flint acknowledges the final ruling in the landlord-tenant case involving the vendor managing Hasselbring Senior Center.”
Chief of Staff Ed Taylor said: “We are thankful that this matter has reached a resolution and pleased the judge followed the law by granting the city possession of the center allowing us to move forward in our focus on ensuring a safe, welcoming, and enriching environment where seniors will thrive.
“We appreciate the support and patience of our community throughout this process and look forward to a bright future for all the city’s senior centers and the residents who depend on their services.”
Flint Resident and Hasselbring Volunteer Rosemary Morrow expressed optimism after the hearing. She told the Courier being able to take the matter to circuit court was what she and other local residents wanted.
Flint Resident AC Dumas told the Courier: “What happened in court was not unexpectable to me. I kind of knew what the judge was going to do. An issue that I have is we elected judges in the City of Flint, and the judges are supposed to be blind: blind to the city council and blind to the administration. We elected them to rule on landlord tenants. What they did is allegedly they recused themselves and sent it out to Burton, who don’t know anything about the City of Flint.:
Dumas noted the judge had said on the previous court date that she did had not read the Flint City Charter. She said she had read the Burton City Charter in its entirety.
