City asks for dismissal of Oct. 1 complaint filed by local landlords

The city of Vermillion is denying allegations made by 15 Vermillion landlords included in a complaint stating the rental housing owners experienced financial harm through the amending of city ordinances.

In a response filed Oct. 16 by James Moore, an attorney for the defendants with Woods, Fuller, Schultz and Smith, P.C. based in Sioux Falls, the city denied allegations, which were included in a complaint filed Oct. 1, and asked the court for a dismissal.

Local landlords asked for declamatory judgment on six different counts included in the Oct. 1 complaint in relation to the amending of rental housing codes in August 2011, and the approval in March 2014 of the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, according to court documents.

They are also seeking actual damages, including but not limited to attorney and expert witness’s fees.

Through the city’s response, statement of facts such as the location of Vermillion in Clay County and the basis of the amendment of a city ordinance in regards to rental units are admitted as truth, but deny other allegations in the complaint.

The plaintiffs are Aces and Eights, Card Bros., LLC; Terry Amundson; Bye Real Estate; East River, LLC; Five Star Cottages, LLC; Vermillion Rentals, LLC; Hatle Investments, LLC; Michael Heles; Timothy T. Heine; Sioux Empire Real Estate D/B/A M&W Services; Barb Iacino; Glen Lawrensen; Amaze Rental Properties; Ouellette Rentals, LLC; and Plum Villa, LLC.

The Vermillion City Council and its members — John E. Powell, Holly Meins, Clarene Meins, Rich Holland, Steve Ward, Katherine Price, Kelsey Collier-Wise, Howard Wilson and Parker Erickson — the city of Vermillion, John Prescott, Andrew Colvin, Mike Carlson, Farrel Christensen, and Eric Birkeland are listed as defendants.

According to the complaint submitted by Michael H. Paulson with Christopherson, Anderson, Paulson and Fideler, LLP based out of Sioux Falls, the landlords claim the Aug. 1, 2011 amendment to an ordinance were hurting them financially by requiring all registered rental housing to be provided with smoke alarms which receive its primary power from the building wiring, with battery backup by Jan. 1, 2014, and comply with mandates regarding egress windows.

Additionally, the complaint alleges with the adoption of Ordinance No. 1310 in March of this year, which would allow owners of rental units to be fined if their properties do not comply with mandated regulations, put more financial stress upon the landlords.

Included in the six counts of the complaint, local rental housing owners claim “the application of the ordinances is constitutionally and statutorily violative of the Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural Due Process rights,” the complaint states.

The documents also state that all ordinances adopted by the city in this matter should be null and void because of alleged defects in references to chapters of South Dakota Common Law 9-19.

Plaintiffs claim the ordinances should be nullified due to improper number of publications after the enactment of ordinances in 2011, in connection with SDCL 9-19-7. Furthermore, the landlords’ complaint states with SDCL 9-19-16, the city violated a set timeline in which a committee may “prepare and submit for its consideration an ordinance in revision of the ordinances of the municipality,” according to documents.

The city’s response asserts “Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” While seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendants are also asking for the coverage of costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees.