Burning Down the House: Did Local Man Have the Right to Set Fire to His Own House?

[XLFD]

On Wednesday, December 28, a man decided to torch his house lying just southeast of Round Lake in a house most recently owned by deceased local attorney Henry Dongvillo.  Local media and even Mlive (whose article follows) caught the story and the reactions of the county agencies that were dispensed to deal with the incident. 

Man burns down house to get rid of it. Bad idea, sheriff says.

MASON COUNTY, MI - If you buy a piece of property with a house on it that you don't want, it's not a good idea to burn the structure down.

That's what a 72-year-old Ottawa County man did, and he may now be facing criminal charges, according to the Mason County sheriff.

The property owner told Mason County deputies that he didn't intend to pursue an insurance claim or had any malicious intent, said Sheriff Kim Cole. It was just that the house had sat vacant for several years and the man didn't believe it was worth rehabilitating, according to Cole.

"He just wanted it gone, so he set it on fire," Cole said.

The structure fire in the 6900 block of East Sugar Grove Road in Sheridan Township was reported by a motorist around 1:15 p.m. Wednesday, Cole said. By the time firefighters from Branch Township and Fountain Area fire departments arrived, the house was a burning pile of rubble, he said.

The man from West Olive who had recently purchased the property told sheriff deputies he did not realize he needed a permit to burn the structure, Cole said. If he had contacted the local fire department, it's possible the department would have burned the house for him as a training exercise, Cole said.

Instead, the man may face criminal charges related to burning without a permit and improper disposal of hazardous waste, Cole said. The home contained mattresses and perhaps other materials such as tiles made of materials that could damage the environment when burned, he said.

It will be up to the Mason County prosecutor to determine if charges are appropriate. [End article]

The property affected was 6983 E Sugar Grove Road, which County/LIAA records inform us is a 53.63 acre lot which was sold to Dede LLC on June 30, 2016.  The mastermind behind setting the fire was Steve Vatka, according to the MCP, who admittedly did not have any permits.  A Michigan DNR Officer on scene noted that structures can only be intentionally burned by fire departments for training purposes and even then, special permits must be acquired and all of the non-natural materials must be removed from the structure.

But the question should be asked:  Why does one have to ask the government permission to burn down one's own house? 

In a city setting, it seems logical that would be required because of the danger to other houses, and the danger to utilities serving those other houses; but here, a man set his house on fire well away from other houses with no public utility in danger.  

Noting weather conditions of Fountain for that day, it was rather windy, but the wind was from the south, and basically a non-factor since the area to the south of this house was densely wooded and uphill.  A thin layer of snow was on the ground inhibiting any fire spread, the trees were in winter-hibernation and leafless.  One notices from the pictures taken at the scene that the trees were uncharred, and snow remained on the ground, unmelt, near the burnt structure.  This indicates the small building had not the fire load to do any damage to neighbors even if it were somehow able to cross the common driveway between them, against the wind. 

But even if Steve Vatka had a controlled burn of his house which didn't have much of a chance of doing any damage beyond the building, what might the law have in store for him.

Historically, common law arson involved showing four elements:  The 1) malicious  2) burning of 3) the dwelling 4) of another.  This incident only has element two, as the structure was not a common law dwelling.  Regrettably, over 200 years of legislators making legislation has dramatically changed common law into the point of irrelevance. What does current state law dictate?

The arson and burning section of Michigan law seems to point this action to being second degree arson,  "A person who willfully or maliciously burns, damages, or destroys by fire or explosive a dwelling, regardless of whether it is occupied, unoccupied, or vacant at the time of the fire or explosion, or its contents, is guilty of second degree arson.  This applies regardless of whether the person owns the dwelling or its contents.  Second degree arson is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property damaged or destroyed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

As you can see "malicious" has been broadened with the addition of "willful", which applies to any non-accidental action.  A "dwelling" can now be vacant, and it doesn't matter whether you own it or not. 

The only thing that may save Mr. Vatka from this felony is if he can show the building was not a dwelling or that the building was worth less than $1000.  To show the first, he would have to show the structure reasonably could not have been lived in at the time of the fire (MCL 750.71).  Unfortunately, the evidence either way has been destroyed. 

If the county prosecutor wishes to, however, he can still get the fire-starter for Third Degree Arson, which only requires a building of $20,000 or more value, or Fourth Degree Arson if the valuation is between $1000 and $20,000.  If prior county assessments of the building and property are taken, it is unlikely the value would go below the $1000 mark, which would then reduce the act to a misdemeanor (MCL 750.78).

If the prosecutor takes into account all the factors involved in this instance he may be satisfied with the fines the DNR and other local agencies decide to attach to this property owner's inability to follow the maze of permits us modern-day citizens are forced to get to change our property for what we believe is for the better.  Or maybe he believes we would all be better served by having such 72 year old scofflaws in jail for the rest of their lives. 

What do you think?  Should homeowners in the country be able to do such radical actions to their own property with minimal interference (realizing that they will be liable for any damage that happens beyond their property line), or should they have to go through all the mostly unnecessary bells and whistles of bureaucracy?

[John Doe Jr]

Well, if he went to township meetings then he would have been told a story about chickens in a VW bus by Gulumbo. Which is his every answer to community problems and resolve. Gulumbo says,"If it's on 40 acres or more save your breath from bringing it up. So, 40 acres or more they do as they damn please. If he had removed harmful items and just burned the wood it would be fine.

[stump]

I have heard of the fire departments using old structures for practice. I would think that would have been my first thought on how to get rid of it. More info would have been brought out on what was needed to have it gone. I have never heard of these laws before, I'm sure most people haven't either.  Hope he comes out Ok . He still has the mess of the burned structure to clean up.

[XLFD]

When I was on the LFD, we used two donated obsolete houses in Ludington for search, rescue & ventilation practice before they were demolished.  The use of donated houses for live-fire training involves a bit more liability and preparation that often makes it prohibitive for many departments. 

The laws for arson and burning are not generally known, I learned quite a bit myself just researching this issue.  Most people are aware of common-law terms, and may generally believe that if you safely burn down an obsolete building of yours on your property well away from others that you have done nothing wrong unless you try to make fraudulent insurance claims.  Nope, it's a felony that could net you 20 years. 

[stump]

It's against the law to burn down a building with hazardous materials [ a mattress ] in it and the owner faces prosecution but the city of Ludington stood by and let Shultz Construction polute the whole neighborhood of South James street when they demolished the old Lyons / All Phase building full of asbestos. 

[XLFD]

Great point.  My dwelling, and hundreds of other Ludington citizens' dwellings were closer to the old Lyon's Supermarket than any of the neighbor's houses were when this house was burned.  The asbestos tiles strewn throughout the rubble onto the sidewalk and streets, however, warranted no article or outrage by the local media outlets or authorities. 

But then a harmless fire in the middle of nowhere may need to be prosecuted because a mattress was involved and the owner didn't ask permission.

[Willy]

It would be a silly and stupid move by the Prosecutor to charge this man with a felony. The real problem as I see it is by not informing the fire department that no emergency existed, the fire department rushed out to the burning structure not knowing the situation. As we all know many accidents happen when emergency vehicles speed towards a problem. This man should have said that he already tore down the building and was just burning the wood. Then he could not be accused of burning a dwelling, only a pile of rubble.

[AQUAMAN]

Meanwhile, a few summers ago, the Ludington Boat Club, on Lake St., burned pile after pile of dredged contaminated 150+ year old wood debris, in plain daylight, for days on end. This happened after they got a dredge permit to deepen their dockage areas. Were they charged with any wrongdoing? Hell no per Chief Funk, whom simply put one fire out 5 days afterward, and let them continue into the next few days when the rest was put to flame. All that dredgings, was to be legally hauled off to a suitable landfill, at owners cost. That simply didn't happen, and even after the DNR found out, nothing happened. Guess its not what you do, but who you are, in city officials eyes.

[XLFD]

Willy, I have received supplemental information concerning this burn that indicated the house had already been torn down and was just a pile of rubble when they set fire to it. 

It should be stressed that neighbors who actually live nearby weren't the ones who called it in, it was called in by someone passing by in their car.  When the first fire officer came on scene, I hoped they called dispatch to slow the units down, but from the variety of responding units and their demeanor has me believe that it wasn't.   

 Here's the story Aquaman mentions from 2013, the LBC dredging their docks and setting all the wood they brought up on fire.  Where was Sheriff Kim Cole or Chief Mark Barnett then?  They surely weren't passing the offense along to the prosecutor.  Other super-suspicious fires from last year occurring at the proposed Lakeshore Resource Network (920 E Tinkham) and the Castonia's ancestral home which merited minimal investigation of causation and zero mention of environmental damage therefrom, unlike this 'controlled burn'.