not putting out the TN fire

[d_r]

Here is a different way they could handle it.

As I understand the situation, you have a small town with a fire department, in a county that has none. The county residents outside the town limits can pay a fee to have fire service. The fire department has asked for a small county wide tax to cover fire protection, but the county turned it down. A house catches on fire. The owner assumed that, even though they didn't pay the $75 fee, the fire department would put it out anyway. They didn't. On the one hand, some could argue that the person had the option and didn't pay because he thought he could take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, most would agree the fire fighters really ought to fight the fire anyway, even though the guy was taking advantage of the situation.

Here's the way they could have handled it. Give people the option of paying the fee or not. Tell them up front that if they don't pay the fee and there is a fire, they will have to cover the cost of the fire department responding out of pocket. Then, if there is a fire and they didn't pay the fee, tell them to quickly sign a paper that says "I agree to pay all the expenses of the fire department for coming out here to put this fire out." That is what they turned down by not paying the fee, the "insurance" of spreading the risk for the cost of the fire. So still be willing to put the fire out, but after they agree to cover the costs. Sue the home insurance company after the fact to recoup the cost if needed, etc.

[Fumesucker]

1. Apparently TN law does not allow a FD to get a judgement..

And does not allow a fee above $500..

As I understand it in TN the FD has no legal mechanism at all to force someone to pay any amount, the fact that the man whose house burned down stiffed the FD three years ago and has not been to court or paid leads me to think this is most likely true..

I read this on a blog heavily frequented by lawyers and no one disagreed with the statement..

[jdlh8894]

6. Didn't The FD come from KY into TN?

[Fumesucker]

9. I believe so...

But they would be suing, if they could, in TN court, not KY..

At least that is my understanding..

Disclaimer, IANAL and I don't even play one on TV.

[rrneck]

56. South Fulton's in Tennessee. nt

[hayu_lol]

110. jdlh8894, the earliest reports on this fire started the confusion...

between Fulton Kentucky and South Fulton Tennessee. When you look at a road atlas, you find the twin cities of Fulton and S Fulton separated by a road or highway.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I keep reading that version of events

but on Countdown the man said the FD had previously been summoned, but showed up after they had gotten the fire out, and that he paid the next day. The 'had another fire and stiffed them' version is something I have seen repeated, but it is counter the information I heard, and I have not seen anything that supports the other version, except other people repeating it.
So do you have a link? I hate it when that gets asked, but I break my own rule.

[jdlh8894]

21. Didn't break your rule

What some don't understand,is that 20 miles in KY /TN can take over 1 hour. Especially when you are driving a Tanker loaded w/water 'cause there are no water supplies in that area.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. That is non responsive. I'm not asking that.

Utterly beside the point. I asked for a link to the information the other poster stated.

[jdlh8894]

27. Sorry, Mis-read or understood. My Bad.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. No problem

Of course the claim making poster has not responded.

[hayu_lol]

111. Bluenorthwest, there have been many threads and many of those...

have the links for all the info.

The reference to the earlier fire(another property owned by the guy who started this one)3 years ago stated that the FD was called. At that time, this VFD was trying to put out fires throughout their area, subscriber or no. On this other property, the owner was not a suscriber. FD put out the fire. They billed him($500 max allowed by County Commissioners irregardless of actual cost). The owner, after having his fire put out, did not become a subscriber and has not, to date, paid for that fire service.

Come to the present. The guy starts an open trash burn in two burn barrels. County that day had issued wind warnings--open burning was forbidden. Fire got out of control. Pets ran into garage. The guy got them and put them in the trailer.

He called the S Fulton VFD. They checked to see if he was a subscriber. He was NOT. His neighbor however, was a suscriber and also called in to the VFD. The FD responded to the neighbor as per their agreement. When the fire crossed the property line and threatened the subscriber neighbor, the VFD put the fire out.

The VFD had sent one pumper truck and one tanker truck. There are no hydrants in the fire area. Had the fire department used their water fighting the home fire, they would have had none for their subscriber. Their only responsibility was to the subscriber.

There are two links of major importance on Hannah Bell's thread from yesterday. One of them has the head commissioner of Obion County stating that if you subscribe, you will have fire service. If you do not, you get NO service.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9263353

The most important link is the pdf file.

[TexasObserver]

20. Until someone produces statutory authority for that, it remains a myth.

A city can charge for its services, and can sue for those services. That's true of paramedic calls, which are done by many fire departments.

Right now, that storyline is just an allegation without any legal authority. Governmental units can charge for the costs of things they do in most cases, whether that is making copies at the clerk's office or picking up someone from an auto accident and taking them to the hospital. Such charges are routine, and can be enforced by civil litigation. Cities file suit against citizens all the time for services rendered and not paid - from cable TV, to water, to ambulance service.

If you can find the statute which says what you claim, I'd like to read it.

[jdlh8894]

24. When did cities start controlling Cable TV?

[TexasObserver]

28. Cities have long "controlled" cable TV in their jurisdiction.

Are you aware that most cable tv companies operate in a city based upon a deal with the city by which they are allowed to provide their services?

In some cities, the city actually bills and collects for such. Usually, they simply authorize the cable tv company to operate in the city through what is essentially a granted monopoly for cable, but some actually bill and collect for cable.

[jdlh8894]

29. So the city bills you for cable?

Or are you billed separately by the cable Co.?

[TexasObserver]

30. Not me. Citizens in such cities. And yes, they do.

I am aware of one city that provides both cable and electricity, and bill for them directly to citizens.

I think you're missing the point here. The city usually does not directly bill citizens for cable tv, but they get a fee for allowing your cable company to operate there. A few cities run their own cable systems, which they sub out to a well known cable company, such as Time Warner.

Please stop hijacking the thread over this insignificant point.

[struggle4progress]

33. The powers of municipalities varies by state,. The powers in Tennessee

are fixed by Title 6 of the Tennessee statutes and may vary according to the type of charter: see http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/3c3e?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#

[TexasObserver]

45. The power to sue for damages is inherent.

Let me be clearer. I call bullshit on the entire notion that the city cannot sue for services they provide. Cities can and do litigate for many things in civil court, especially unpaid amounts for services provided.

Someone has been repeating a statement that is without merit - claiming that the city cannot sue the homeowners for recovery of costs to put out a fire. It has been repeated in threads here many times. I've asked someone to produce a statute that prohibits a city from being a plaintiff in a suit to collect fees for providing services. If no one can produce such a statute, it means there is no such prohibition.

[Statistical]

77. The town has been stiffed for years.

For years they responded to calls without coverage and homeowners after the fact quickly "forgot" any promise to pay.

The mayor of the town indicated they couldn't recover the debts and have no mechanism under TN law to sue.

If he is wrong and you are 100% sure you are right.... why not by up all that bad debt for $0.01 on the dollar and then sue for face value. You could retire quickly.

Until you (or someone else) shows proof THEY CAN sue under TN I will trust the people who actually tried and said it is impossible.

[TexasObserver]

80. You don't understand the issues.

The city has a cause of action against the homeowner, and it can recover such costs, if it is willing to sue them for it. There is no cause of action by the city against the county.

Of course the city has the right to sue for the services they provide to non resident, non subscribers. If the mayor said they don't, he's wrong. He probably means they only collect half of such billings, and don't want to bother with suing for those that remain unpaid. He's the mayor of a town of 2500. He probably knows next to nothing about the law.

The right to sue is a fundamental right. Unless you can find a statute in Tennessee which prohibits a city from suing for services provided (and you can't), a city has that right.

Frankly, the argument that the city can't sue of such services is the worst argument made by the "let it burn" advocates.

[Statistical]

81. More broadly the amount sucessfully recovered (sued or not) is very low.

The town loses money on every call on a residence which opted to not purchase coverage. Maybe the Mayor spoke imprecisely but the point is potential recoveries after the fact are (and likely will continue to be) very low. Just because everyone has a right to sue doesn't mean everyone will recover full face value of all debts. Trillions in debts get discharged every year as too difficult or too unlikely to recover. Every dollar not recovered is a dollar that has to be paid by residents of the town.

Why should the town continue to pay for freeloaders in the county who year after year refuse to pay yet expect services for "free"?
Why what possible reason should the town be expected to provide services for those outside the town and at no cost.

Why doesn't your town for example spend $500K a year of your town's budget to fund a fire dept (for free to the residents) of this county so they have their own fire dept. This is in essence what you believe th town should do.

The mayor may be incorrect that he "can't sue" but it certainly is possible that the unsecured debts are essentially worthless. I mean it isn't like all debt is collectible. People simply refuse to pay. You get a judgement and they still refuse to pay. Especially persons with little assets the likelyhood of full repayment (including all costs) is unlikely.

[TexasObserver]

84. They need a city attorney who understands how to collect such sums.

It starts by filing a lien for services rendered in the deed records of the county, thereby encumbering the real estate with a lien which will show up on the deed records when any title search is done. Because such a search is required in any sale of the property, the lien will have to be dealt with at the time of a sale or other transfer, or of a refinancing of the property.

The deed records will reveal if there is a mortgage lien-holder on the real estate, and notice of the city's lien for services should be given to the mortgage lien-holder, which will typically require the homeowner to pay the lien for services.

The city can and should find an attorney who will handle the cases on a contingency, with the city providing only the costs of court. In this fashion, the city could take the refuseniks to court, get not only the costs for the service, but attorneys fees, interest on the total, and costs of court. Some people simply do not pay unless they're sued. Once they're sued, they have to fight a battle they will certainly lose, and they end up with a judgment of $2500 on a debt they could have paid in full for $500 to $1000.

The beauty of such judgments is they are judgment liens, and the city can enforce them against any non exempt property of the homeowner. The city attorney can seize and sell things such four wheelers, guns, extra cars, boats, and such to satisfy the judgment.

Everything I've read indicates the city bills people, collects some, and blows off collection efforts on the others. I'm not opposed to the city giving the non complying homeowners a good public horse whipping for these cases. That's what the non subscriber has coming. He should be made to pay the full cost of putting out his house fire. He loses the $75 deal, but he has to pay many times that.

I favor holding these non subscribers responsible to the fullest extent of the law, but it does not appear the city has done much beyond send a demand letter.

[Statistical]

85. There is very strict limits on when and how a lien can be placed on property.

For example if I get a speeding ticket in CA (I live in VA) they would have no authority to place a lein on my house for recovery. They can fine me, attempt to collect, sell deb to collection agencies, even sue me but they can't encumber my property with a lien.

Likewise if I blow off my emergency room bill they have no authority to place a lien on my residence. There is nothing that indicates the fire dept has the authority to place leins on property outside the town. Nothing.

Even with judgements lots of debt is simply NEVER recovered. Many people have few if any assets. Many people have no interest in ever paying their debts.

Your belief that it is "easy" to collect 100% of value of delinquent accounts is naive. If you are even half that good you could retire a multi-millionaire in a matter of months.

The reality is every year trillions in unsecured debt is written off the books of banks, hospitals, companies, and even govt because it has a present value of $0.0 or less (meaning the future recoveries offset by costs and time value is less than $0).

I will concede I was wrong about "durress" issue but I do know something about valuing debt. Collection isn't as easy as you make it out to be. If it were well a lot less debt would be written off.

[TexasObserver]

86. Your understanding is incorrect.

Liens for providing services are common. I don't know where you got your information, but it's incorrect. If California gets a judgment against you in California, they can seek an order from a court in your state enforcing the California judgment. It's done all the time.

You're wrong about the claim from one state not being enforceable in another. They are enforceable. They have to be a perfected judgment lien.

My opinion on this topic is informed, unlike yours. Suppose whatever you wish, but since I don't do things like buy BP stock when it's $52 a share, I don't have to seek out business from towns of 2500 for collections.

[Statistical]

88. CA can't place a lien against my primary residence in VA for nopayment of services in CA.

Any claim otherwise is utter BS.

Laws vary by state but are very strict on what debt can be secured via a lien and very few debts can. There is a lot of bad debt out there. Very little gets as far a a judgment even a smaller fraction ends up as a lien against a primary residence.

There is nothing under TN law that allows this magical lien against primary residence for nonpayment of services. If it were for example a cable company or utility would never lose a single penny ever on any account in the history of the company. That isn't even close to true. Homeowners would be virtually risk free to lend to. Simply place a lien for any and all debts they fail to pay and get paid eventually when the house is sold.

The reality is very few debts qualify for a lien against primary residence and fire dept isn't one of them.



BTW: I made out handsomely on the BP deal. Not sure why months later it rubs you the wrong way.

[TexasObserver]

91. I just explained to you that they can.

You can claim they can't all you want to, but you're mistaken.

The reality is you know next to nothing about the law of liens, and you're displaying that here.

[Statistical]

92. they can't.

Not all debts can be secured via liens.

Actually almost ALL debts can't be secured via liens.

T.C.A. § 66-11-102 to 146

Your idea that any debt can be secured via liens is a joke. If so no homeowner would ever avoid any obligation ever.

[TexasObserver]

93. If you were lawyer, perhaps you'd understand lien laws.

You fail to understand that when the fire department answers a fire call of a non resident, non subscriber, they ARE a contractor under the lien statutes.

Your problem is you don't understand the term "contractor." You think that only means a guy who constructs things.

The fire department in the city IS a contractor. Of course they have contractor status under the law.

I'm not sure if you have any area of expertise, but you've proven it isn't law.

[Statistical]

95. TN requires an improvement.

It even goes so far as to define imrovements.

Not just any contractor can place a lien on real property in TN (or any state).

I gave you the exact statute.

[TexasObserver]

97. I've read the statute. You don't know what you're reading.

You're merely trying to filibuster because you lack the expertise or the knowledge to do otherwise.

[Statistical]

100. Oh my lying eyes....

TN felt it so important to spend 400 words to define "improvement" but it is all lies. Only TexasObserver knows the truth about TN law.

Those idiots in TN wasting all those words for what "obviously" means nothing.

[TexasObserver]

105. It's not your eyes where that problem lies.

[struggle4progress]

118. Well, okay, maybe you can find a Tennessee precedent establishing that.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a Tennessee lawyer. The officials in South Fulton are on record saying they have no power to enforce their fire call charges for fire calls outside the municipality, and since they apparently have gotten stiffed on these fees for years, I'd guess they probably know what they're talking about, so far as Tennessee law goes. I glanced over Title 6 of the Tennessee statutes, which describes the powers of municipalities, according to type of municipal charter --and concluded (unprofessionally, of course) that the assertion by the South Fulton officials might very well be accurate, if under Tennessee law the municipalities are creatures of the state and have only such powers as the legislature allows them

If the South Fulton fire department voluntarily and without legal obligation fights fires outside the municipality, and incurs costs in so doing, it is not immediately clear to me what damages they can claim from their voluntary act. And if the legislature has not explicitly granted the municipalities the authority to sue to enforce contracts for services offered by towns outside town limits, then it might actually be the case that South Fulton has no way to enforce its fire service call agreements with residents in the unincorporated area

That's the best I can do with what I know so far. If you can add to the knowledge base, feel free to do so

[hayu_lol]

112. TexasObserver, you have been referred to links many times...

in several threads. You really need to read the material the links provide. Your question can be answered if you go to post 111 on this thread and click on the links that are on Hannah Bell's thread. Read both.

The Obion County head commissioner and his board has limited bills for fire service to $500. The head commissioner has stated that there is NO legal mechanism in place in Obion County to recoup an unpaid bill. This is fully covered in Hannah's links.

You keep repeating the same question over and over again...read the pdf links and you will then understand.

[TexasObserver]

117. hayu_lol, I've responded to this nonsense repeatedly.

If you want to know my position, read my posts.

You just keep repeating yourself, as if the things you have read and taken to heart actually matter.

I've already told you the county head commissioner has no role in this. The cause of action would belong to the city, not the county, and the person against whom they have the cause of action is the homeowner, not the county.

You know, it really does matter if a person knows what they're talking about.

[hayu_lol]

2. Problem is that the next door neighbor was a subscriber...

he called the VFD. The trucks waited until the fire crossed the property line and then put it out.

The FD's responsibility was to the subscribing neighbor who paid for fire service. They had limited water in the truck and tanker. Had they fought the fire for the non-subscriber, they might not have had enough to save the neighbor's(subscriber)place.

Their responsibility and liability was to the subscriber.

[The Wielding Truth]

16. Ever think that if they would have put the fire out at the first house the

subscribers house would not have been in danger and the animals in the non subscribers house might not have died? Any fireman who goes to a house fire and does not try to stop the fire has betrayed their duty to their profession or reason for existing. Since when do you stand by and let harm come ot something when it's your duty is to stop it.This is not a, poor be damned, country.If anyone thinks it is then they will have to wait for their turn to be ^^%%$%#@ on. It will happen.

[seabeyond]

25. ever think if the owner open his door while the fire was still a distance away the animals would not

have died

[The Wielding Truth]

32. So the man whose animals were killed was responsible? While he was not trained

and had to fear for his own life and the firemen had the training and equipment and stood and watched. Yea, there's equity. Hey, I guess we can all write our own scenarios. I think that it was wrong of the firemen to be there and not help.

[seabeyond]

37. you dont need to be trained to open a door like you have all your life. the house was not on fire

it was a house, sittin there, waitin for a door to be open, like any other time. the fire was well out in the yard. there was plenty of time to open a door and call the dogs outside. with no fire around.

ya

i blame the owner.

if it were a child, would you open the door and get the child out of the house?

[The Wielding Truth]

47. That's cool. Can you link that to me, about the start of the fire?

[seabeyond]

70. no. you can google it. same story, and clear to all. nt

[sweetapogee]

42. How long have you been in the...

...fire service?

[The Wielding Truth]

48. So I have to be a 'weatherman to see which way the wind blows"?

If a fireman is at a fire and the ONLY thing that stops him from doing his duty is a $75 pay-up then he has no integrity as a fireman.

[sweetapogee]

71. I know...

...I know what the Space Shuttle looks like and what it does, does that qualify me to take one out for a spin?

[Statistical]

78. What duty?

Their duty is to the residents of the town.

They have no more duty to stop a fire in another state then the NY Police Dept has to solve murder in VA.

[jdlh8894]

22. What VFD??? n/t

[tularetom]

3. Put the fire out. Sue the homeowner for the full cost

Get a lien on his property if he won't pay.

But first, put the fire out.

[seabeyond]

11. this has been gone over. it doesnt work. they dont pay. and in another state

cant put a lien...

[TexasObserver]

75. You're absolutely correct.

[sandnsea]

4. Clearly everyone is on their own

And the ones who claim to be the "real progressives" on this board think it's just fine.

[seabeyond]

14. what do you suggest sandnsea. significantly higher taxes for the small town of 2500 to cover for

half the larger wealthier county of 35K?

[sandnsea]

18. Do like civil people and put the fires out

You act as if other counties in this country don't deal with this sort of thing every single day. They do. They put the fire out and worry about payment later.

Our town has an EMT system that charges an annual fee. If you don't pay it, they transport you anyway and then bill you.

There is NO EXCUSE for this in this country.

You think the people with the million dollars homes 6 blocks away from me don't pay significantly more property taxes than I do? What the hell kind of excuse is that for not having fire service for everyone.

Get the fuck out of Texas and learn how civilized people live.

[seabeyond]

19. they tried that sandnsea. they didnt get payment. it is in another state. not like right outside

our city where we can take action for non payment. they could not get people to pay the bill. and could not take action cause seperate state.

now what?

[sandnsea]

26. Oh right. You can't sue someone from another state

It's stunning to me the stupidity that people will swallow around here. Of course they can sue. Don't be absurd. They can also vote to remove the people in the other state from their county. The solutions to the problem are endless. Letting someone's home burn is NOT one of them. How fucking morally bankrupt does somebody have to be to think it's okay to let a home burn to the ground, and animals and possibly people along with it. It's sick.

[BzaDem]

57. +1. The idea that you can't sue someone in another state is laughable. n/t

[Statistical]

87. People is a strawman.

The dept has a policy to save people regardless of the location (and covered status).

While one can sue in another state it is often not cheap, and a judgement is no guarantee you will be paid. For the fire dept a judgement is simply an expensive piece of paper if they end up collecting no money.

Even if they collect it is entire (and very likely) the amount collected will be pennies on the dollar meaning a deficit which has to be paid by the town's residents.

Since it is a morally gray area I would make it simple. Town stops providing any coverage to anyone outside the town. Those in the county can:
a) start their own fire dept
b) put out their own fires & watch their own houses burn
c) purchase blanket coverage from the town (one single check by county covering everyone)

[DURHAM D]

5. won't work

The county just needs to spend the bucks to take care of the county residents. But they won't do it cause they want the dumb town dwellers to keep taking care of them while they laugh at the stupid schmucks.

[gratuitous]

7. And if, while fighting the Cranick fire, another fire breaks out

It's a couple of miles away, but the firefighters are already involved at the place of the guy who couldn't be bothered to pay his $75 a year. Now for the kicker: The homeowner of the second property did pay his $75. What are the firefighters supposed to do then? And would you, as the second homeowner, be all right with the total loss of your property because the Cranicks called the fire department first and had the crew and equipment tied up?

I know that Americans are exceedingly generous, but I don't think I know two people who'd be all right with that scenario.

[JI7]

8. the City and County are in different states from what i understand

[jdlh8894]

12. Not only that-

This is very rural country. No city water(no hydrants,water trucks and pumpers)take a while to get to the scene.

[struggle4progress]

34. No, they're not. Fulton is in Kentucky, but South Fulton is in Tennessee

Obion county is in Tennessee

The fire department isn't from Fulton KY, but from South Fulton TN

[Hannah Bell]

35. there is some truth to it. fulton & south fulton have a mutual aid agreement, & fulton goes out

on south fulton's rural calls if asked.

according to fulton's website.

[struggle4progress]

39. Thanks!

[ncteechur]

10. The should have put the fire out because they had already paid property taxes.

Any argument for letting the house burn is bullshit.

[seabeyond]

13. well you are wrong. county in another state. no property tax toward fire.....

and none of it goes to the city thru the ounty of another state so the only bullshit is your post

[Hannah Bell]

36. county residents don't pay city property taxes, & county property taxes go to the county,

not the city.

and the county has no fire service.

that's one reason it has low property taxes.

[Lance_Boyle]

73. those property taxes do not cover fire protection

That's why there's a $75 fee for fire protection that's separate from county tax. The county TRIED to get fire protection covered by taxation, but the county board shot that idea down 19-1.

Any argument for giving libertarian rabidly-anti-tax shitbrains free fire protection on someone else's dime is bullshit.

[Statistical]

103. any claim they paid taxes for fire protection is bullshit. n/t

[Wickerman]

15. I've not posted on this yet

and won't cast a judgment beyond saying your argument has a flaw. If no one paid the FD until they had a fire, the FD would not be able to stay in business long enough to go to fires. You need the money up front to pay for safety equipment, $200K+ trucks, radios, garages, training, etc.


Edit to add $ sign to 200K+. I'm a moron, but even I know a small town in a rural area, no matter how much mutual aid they respond to, needs over 200,000 trucks.

[Hannah Bell]

38. fire engine cost $250K in 2005 per a county document.

and then there's repairs & maintenance. and pumper trucks, & hoses, & protective gear, & call system -- & gas, & a building to put all the stuff in, sitting on some land --

even a volunteer fire department costs plenty.

some folks here seem to think everything's "for the love".

[PVnRT]

40. They tried your solution. Many didn't pay, and for some reason, the FD can't collect

Frankly, I would like to know why no one has the authority to collect these fees.

[seabeyond]

41. i read a document on putting plan together. many dont pay. i think they dont even try because of

cost.

there are 5 municipals that dont charge, but if they go out to a fire they charge 500. mostly, strong mostly, they dont collect. they absorb cost into their own.

that is all that was said about payment.

[TexasObserver]

46. What it really means is they made little effort to collect.

The city attorney should file liens on every home that doesn't pay, give notice to the mortgage holder and insurer of the property, and sue for the amounts if that doesn't get the bill paid.

It sounds as if all they do is send the bill. Half pay and half don't. You have to make those others pay, and with real estate, that means you can cloud the title with a lien and get paid now, or some time down the road.

[sweetapogee]

43. back to the OP

I think there could be a few details that are problematic with making OP plan the working policy.

First, what if the homeowner is not home or is unavailable to make the agreement? What happens if despite all efforts, the home is a total loss? What if, and this is a very likely situation, if a homeowner does not pay a $70.00 subscription and it turns out the homeowner doesn't also pay his insurance premiums? No doubt other issues, these are just off the top of my (pointed) head. I don't mean to be negative but.

I mentioned this on another thread and no one gave a reasonable answer but I read somewhere that the home (I believe it was a double wide trailer) was fully involved when the homeowner finally called 911. Add 15+ minutes to this situation for an out of state fire department response and the inherent difficulties of extinguishing a rural fire (no hydrants) and a home in freeburn. This begs the question, what would then be the point in applying water to the structure? What I'm getting at is at this point is there anything left standing to save?

What really boggles my mind in all this is two things, one, the $70.00 per year subscription is like really reasonable, and second the voting public in this Tenn. county keep voting down attempts to fund their own fire protection services. A good question to ask is why? Private citizens can and do get together and form new fire departments. I know this to be fact because this is what happened in my township. The politicians had nothing to do with it and today, 40 years later, they still don't. Private citizens with a dream and a vision made plans and started fund raising activities and little by little a new fire company was formed. Today, my fire company is probably the best in our county. If you think about it, isn't that truly neighbors helping neighbors?

And why wouldn't the county not want to have this service closer to home? We perform 10 vehicle rescues to every fire we get. This is also a big public safety issue, friends and family are visiting and you get a wreck and you have to wait an hour to get cut out of your wrecked car.

[aikoaiko]

44. Your plan still promotes the free loading of social goods.

[TexasObserver]

49. Your plan still promotes compassion and sanity regarding social goods.

[Zanzobar]

50. Under duress, contracts are void.

As has been mentioned.

[TexasObserver]

51. You're very confused about the concept of "duress."

It does NOT apply to the specified circumstance.

"I'll shoot you if you don't sign this" is duress.

"I'll hurt your kid if you don't sign this" is duress.

"Sign this agreement to pay us to fight the fire outside our jurisdiction" is not duress. It's perfectly enforceable.



Try asserting duress as a defense to signing any contract and see where it gets you.

[Zanzobar]

52. I could, and would.

[TexasObserver]

53. Your opinion on "duress" is mistaken.

[Zanzobar]

54. Get real.

"I'll let your house burn if you don't sign this".

[TexasObserver]

55. You don't understand the limits of the defense of "duress."

If you were right, every document signed in the emergency room would allow the use of "duress" as a defense.

What is the illegal act of coercion which the fire department commits when it says "your home is outside our jurisdiction, so we will only put out the fire if you either (1) subscribe, or (2) sign a contract for our services when we arrive to fight your home fire"?

[Zanzobar]

58. Interesting

Then there is no cause for any inquest, sanction, or censure regarding the Fulton FD by any controlling authority regarding their actions?

Had they attempted to put out the fire and destroyed their equipment, or a firefighter had died, all claims against their insurance policies would rightly be paid because they had acted not illegally? Or are their contractual obligations not subject to the non-illegality of their actions? Or is it a different matter?

[BzaDem]

59. I think his point is that because not putting out a fire is not illegal, duress is inapplicable.

And he is obviously correct, as anyone with even a minimal understanding of the law would know.

[Zanzobar]

60. Thank you for chiming in with the extra info

Oh...there wasn't any. Maybe you would like to try answering my questions above, since you have more than a minimal understanding of the law.

[BzaDem]

63. The point was that your questions were not relevant to the "defense" of duress.

1 is not relevant, since the question is whether they did anything ILLEGAL, not whether there would be an inquest or departmental censure.

2 is ambiguous, since I have no idea what their insurance policies say, and in any event that is not relevant, because they did not do anything illegal.

3 would not affect the applicability of a duress defense, since what they did was not illegal.

Any other questions?

[TexasObserver]

64. Now you've raised many issues.

The city of Fulton and its contract fire department could be sued by those who subscribed for their service, but had to wait until their homes caught fire before getting fire department help. They can rightly argue that the FD was negligent in failing to act to prevent the spread of the original home fire and/or that it was a breach of the contractual duty to protect their home from fire.

I don't think the non subscribing homeowner has any cause of action against the city or the fire department. They did not legally owe him any duty. A civil case must be based upon a legal duty to the plaintiff which is breached. The city's conduct may be reprehensible, but it isn't illegal, and they had no legal duty to save his home. Had he signed up and paid the subscription, he would have a cause of action for breach of contract against them. Having not done so, he has no cause of action against them.

If the FD had come to his home, and demanded and gotten a contract for their services, it would be enforceable, just as the ambulance charges are enforceable when you call one to come to your home. In fact, even without requiring the homeowner to sign a contract, they could pursue their full costs of putting the fire out from the non subscribing, non resident homeowner.

Whether any insurance policy is available for any kind of claim, be it the death of a fire fighter or destruction of equipment, always depends on what the policy says regarding its coverage. If the policy says they can't put out fires outside their jurisdiction, the policy would not be available. If the policy says they can't put out any fire unless it is in their jurisdiction or the person is subscribed, then that's what it means.

There is no answer which can be given to the various insurance questions until one reads the contracts of insurance. If the homeowners policy says the homeowner must pay the annual fee, and he didn't, then his homeowner's policy will not pay. If the fire department's insurance policy says they can't fight fires outside the jurisdiction or to non subscribers, that's what it means.

As for inquests, or investigations of appropriate conduct, that depends on what the political bodies wish, or what judges of competent jurisdiction order.

[Zanzobar]

66. Thanks Tex.

Your comments are appreciated.

Having less than a minimal understanding of the law, I have probably always understood "duress'. I don't think it is an uncommon occurrence to confuse "Duress" with, "I'll gladly pull that thorn from your ass for a hundred bucks". I should probably know better.

[TexasObserver]

68. Sorry if I was a bit harsh in the beginning.

These issues have been heavily discussed the past few days, and I grow weary of claims that things such as "duress" are in play. While the homeowner is definitely in duress when he's watching his home burn, it is a term of art in law and doesn't mean the same thing it does as a colloquial or literal concept.

[adamuu]

61. See: Signing under economic duress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress#Economic_duress

[Zanzobar]

62. Thanks

Definitely worth a look.

[Honeycombe8]

65. An option...but too expensive. Little towns can't afford to start suing county residents

for nonpayment of fire services money. BTW, that cost of putting out the fire, if paid out of pocket, would have been a lot more than $75.00.

The reason they ask for the $75 in advance is because municipalities have budgets. They have to know how much $ they have in advance, so they can plan for staffing, equipment maintenance and purchases, etc. What if your employer told you that they'd pay you at the end of the year, and only then tell you how much they were going to pay you? It'd be hard for you to budget your expenses.

They need the $ up front.

[TexasObserver]

67. Disagree. They can and should sue for the costs, if necessary.

The city could easily file a lien against the property, give notice of it to the homeowner, the homeowner's mortgage lender, and the homeowner's home insurer, and warn that the city will either be paid or it will sue the owner to foreclose on the city's lien for having provided fire fighting services.

All the city needs is a lawyer to take the cases on a contingency, with the city fronting court costs.

As for the budgeting concerns, while the $75 fee is more easily budgeted, there's always going to be a line item in that budget for runs that are not covered by fees, or for collections from those who received services. This city has billed non subscribers before, and I believe they said their success rate in such collections was 50%. I suggest they can collect substantially more of such charges with aggressive collection efforts based upon placing a lien on the property and judicially seeking judgment on and foreclosure of such lien.

The costs may even be recoverable by the homeowner through their own homeowner's insurance policy.

[Statistical]

83. Not all debts can be attached to the property.

The ability to place liens is very restrictive. If there anything in TN statute that allows a fire dept for example to place a lein on property that is a huge assumption you are making.

If not it is unsecured debt and with a freeloader like that it is nearly worthless if the person decides to not pay or stop making payments.

Plus you have to consider the costs. Most likely a small town of 2500 lacks the resources of a collection agency. If they use an agency then the agency cut eats into the any recovered funds.

100% collection is virtually impossible. If you think otherwise start a debt collection company. Unsecured debt can be obtained to cents on the dollar. You could retire a millionaire in a couple years. The reality is most bad debt is never paid and only a tiny fraction is paid in full.

Anyway you slice it the town is virtually guaranteed to collect less than 100% of costs as such you are demanding the residents of the town pay for fire protection costs to non-residents who themselves refuse to pay.

The county can go fuck themselves. Personally I would just 100% end any fire protection in the county. Town collects taxes and fire dept protects the town.

[TexasObserver]

89. No, but liens for providing services to real estate can be.

That's where your entire perception of this matter goes off the rails.

Hire someone to fix your roof, then fail to pay them. See if they don't put a lien on your property, and it will be a good lien. Firefighting is a service provided to the owner of the real estate. There's no reason they can't lien the property.



First the lien. Then the lawsuit. Then the judgment. Then the collection of the judgment. It is complicated to you because you know nothing about it.

[Statistical]

90. TN law is clear on exactly what can result in a lien against real estate.

Fire fighting is not. The statute is available and has been discussed on multiple forums.

Fire fighting doesn't qualify under TN law. Maybe the law should be changed but as it stand now a fire dept can't place a lien on primary residence for nonpayment of services rendered.

[TexasObserver]

94. Yes, it is covered under the lien laws.

I've explained this upthread to you, but since you don't understand what consitutes a contractor, you don't know what is an appropriate subject of a lien filing.

The fire department in the city IS a contractor vis a vis the homeowner who is not a resident and not a subscriber. They have lien rights as such. The fact that you don't comprehend this merely means you don't comprehend this.

[Statistical]

96. Not ANY contractor can place a lien on real estate.

Any good real lawyer would know that.

TN statute (which I provides) specifies the requirements for a lien on real property. Unless amendment it precludes fire fighting.

[TexasObserver]

98. I've explained it to you.

I don't know if you have any area of expertise, but this isn't it.

It's like your authoritative comments regarding "duress."

Being uninformed never slows you down.

[Statistical]

99. In otherwords you realize you are wrong but as always you can never admit it.

Only those contractors making an "improvement" to a property can place lein on property.

TN statute even goes so far as to define "improvement". fire fighting isn't an improvement.

But in the couple years I have been here I have never seen you admit you were wrong about anything ever. You are infallable at everything. I don't expect you to start now (despite providing the exact statute under TN law). Facts who needs them when you are always "right".

Have a good weekend.

[TexasObserver]

101. In other words, I've explained it but you don't understand it.

File a lien. Give notice of it to the mortgage company and make a demand upon the homeowner. File suit. Get a judgment. Get an execution order. Seize assets to pay the judgment. Release the lien upon obtaining satisfaction.

[Statistical]

102. Can't file a lien. A fire dept doesn't satisfy the statutory requirement for a lien.

All liens are the result of debt. Not all debt results in a lien.

The law is very clear on the specific conditions in which a lien may be placed by a prime contractor. If the law is changed that is fine but until they you are just spouting nonsense. The FD has no more ability to secure a lien then the internet provider has for failure to pay for internet service.

Of course TN code "could" be revised but I doubt that will ever happen not in a red state like that.

[TexasObserver]

104. You're mistaken.

I've already explained it to you.

[Statistical]

106. You have explained nothing.

TN code clearly states:

"There shall be a lien on any lot or tract of real property upon which an improvement has been made by a prime contractor and any remote contractor. The lien shall secure the contract price."

Both imrpovement and contract are defined under TN code. Fire fighting is not a covered "improvement".

It is obvious you are wrong but this will be example 98083904839082390480932 in which you fail to admit it.

TO can never be wrong (even when he is) :) Carry on great Oracle TO.

[TexasObserver]

108. Even demolition is considered an "improvement."

[Statistical]

114. Yeah but not fire service (or alarm service or unpaid utilities, or cable service, etc) n/t

[hayu_lol]

113. TexasObserver, are you a lawyer or not?

Have you read any of the links provided by many to discuss this lien issue. Under the laws of Obion County and possibly the state of TN, you cannot file against property for recovery for fire services.

You can argue until the cows come home, but you are more than likely to be discussing what may well be Texas Law and not Tennessee Law.

I continue to suspect that you have yet to read any of the links that have been provided as this story continued to flesh itself out.

Read the pdf file link on Hannah Bell's thread from yesterday.

Otherwise, you become sort of a hmmmm...well, you know.

[TexasObserver]

115. Yes. I've been a lawyer for decades.

I've read the materials to which you allude. They don't say what you think they do.

You're repeating things others have said which are simply untrue or misconstrued.

If you think you can find a statute which you think disproves my position, cite it.

The fact is you don't know anything about Tennessee law, and don't know anything about general legal principles. Every time anything involving law comes up, there are a bunch of posters here who are long on posting and short on understanding and knowledge.

I'll repeat it. Cite the Tennessee statute you think prohibits the city or their contracted fire department from making a successful claim for payment of services by the homeowner who lives outside the city and is not a paid subscriber.

FYI: the first step a lawyer takes is looking at the law of the controlling jurisdiction. That's part of being a lawyer.

[hayu_lol]

121. TexasObserver...ok, you are an attorney.

Are you licensed to practice in Tennessee?

[Honeycombe8]

119. If they did that, there would be DU posters screaming about the mean town putting a lien

on the little homeowner's property, for fire services.

There's no winning. Some people just think that everything should be free, when in fact, there ain't NOTHIN' in the world that is free.

[TorchTheWitch]

69. no, no and no - TAX fund it!

No fucking subscription firefighting service! Firefighting service is a VITAL community NEED and should be funded by taxes just like other vital community needs like police service, road/bridge maintenance, water and gas line maintenance, etc.

As for signing the paper while their house is on fire... what if they aren't there? What if they're IN the fire? And quickly signing a paper while their house is on fire could very easily be construed as signing under duress and perhaps blackmail.

Lord have mercy, this is so fucking SIMPLE... tax fund it like it's been done for 100 years!

[rbnyc]

109. Indeed (nt)

[Lance_Boyle]

72. A contract or promissory note signed in duress as one's house burns

is not worth the paper it's printed on. The FD would never be able to collect.

Aside from that it's a good idea.

[BzaDem]

74. Except that duress has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. Look up the legal definition.

There is no improper threat. It is not illegal for the fire department NOT to put the fire out. If you argued duress, you would literally be laughed out of court.

[Statistical]

76. That is called a contract under duress and will be thrown out in about 2 minutes

by any halfway (not even good) lawyer.

Contracts must be signed in a rational state of mind.
Signing a contract while high, in pain, under torture, or watching your house burn aren't valid.

The town DID respond to fires without coverage for years. Almost nobody paid. Why would they. No contract means it is an unsecure debt which is about worthless in collections. After years of freeloaders intentionally not paying, then demanding fire response, then not paying after the fact the town said "you want coverage you have to pay". The freeloader in the story figured they would still respond anyways. He figured wrong.

Does that change your opinion at all?

[TexasObserver]

79. No, it isn't. Duress under the law is not what you think it is.

It's a contract for services.

It's enforceable.

If you were right, no bill for ambulance service would ever be collectible.

If you were right, no document signed in the emergency room would be enforceable.

[BzaDem]

82. This has been posted many times and debunked many times. Your conception of duress is in no way

related to the legal definition of duress. A contract signed while one's house was burning down is perfectly valid, because there is no improper threat. It would be perfectly legal for the fire department to do nothing.

[MaryKelly]

120. Until a few years ago, they didn't respond to any fires outside their jurisdiction

From Kevin Williamson at NRO:

"The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson

[mkultra]

107. yeah, this is an old idea that fails

essentially, almost 70% of those billed never pay. probably because they just had a house fire.

The funny thing about the whole affair was that the chief wasn't even on the scene. These guys where all volunteer so its not like they would be risking their jobs to disobey. I think they had just had enough of this one guy.

[rbnyc]

116. OR...

...offer the $75 as a basic membership, but do not limit service to members. Offer a patron membership of $150, a benefactor membership of $500, acknowledge donors in a newsletter and a donor wall at the fire station. Do other fundraising to make up budget shortfalls. Generally, Fire Departments are 501(3)3s, I believe. Clearly the department recognized their was a need outside their original service area and tried to find a way to address that need. But they did a really bad job, and didn't use all the tools at their disposal. The whole point of a 501(c)3 is to empower entities to perform their missions and benefit the community. They had so many options. Pay to play is just bad policy and counter to mission. What they need is a good Director of Development.

[hayu_lol]

122. Just a note on equipment...

S Fulton has two pumper trucks...they are not state of the art. One is a 1960 LaFrance which is properly maintained and was affordable when the town bought it. The city of S Fulton has 2500 citizens who voted to form and support with a tax base, their own VFD. At one time, S Fulton serviced Obion County areas near them for free. Citizens of S Fulton paid for that service. No money came from Obion County for fire suppression services.

County of Obion has no agreement, arrangement, or handshake deal for fire service. S Fulton FD has no agreement, arrangement, or handshake deal with Obion County to provide service. They had been fighting fires outside their city limits for free as a public service to the larger population living outside the city of S Fulton.

Even VFDs need to know what their budget is. They knew what they would get from their tax base within their small city. They could work up an estimate of what they could expect in the way of costs but had no clue for fire fighting costs outside the city. At some point, they realized that they required additional funding if they were to continue to put out fires outside the city.

Obion County approved a NO COST TO THE COUNTY voluntary subscription fire service with the S Fulton VFD. They had nothing to do with funding of any kind of the S Fulton VFD.

The only contracts that exist are between individuals who subscribe for fire service from the S Fulton VFD. There are no contracts between non-subscribers and the S Fulton VFD. County Commissioner of Obion County has stated that those who subscribe get fire protection. Those who do NOT subscribe are not entitled to fire protection.

The culprit here is the County Board of Obion County who have repeatedly turned down the possibility of forming their own fire department.

For people to dump on S Fulton VFD are very much in the wrong. It is the Obion County Government that refuses to protect it's own residents.