|
||||||
 |
"It is important to note that the term “de minimis doctrine" is used as a defense in legal matters in the Court System and may in fact represent an admission of guilt..."
"The de minimis defense is a discretionary matter for the Court to decide, and not the Doverbrook Board of Trustees."
|
De Minimis The Doverbrook Board of Directors through legal council, appears to have evoked the “de minimis doctrine” in defense of it actions in allowing “architectural modifications” at Doverbrook. Click here for legal Opinion The term “de minimis” is derived from the Latin “de minimis non curat lex” which means “the law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters.” Black’s Law Dictionary 431 (6th ex. 1990) De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, which is used mostly as part of de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex, to say that the law is not interested in trivial matters. De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention. In risk assessment, de minimis refers to a level of risk which is too small to be concerned with. Some refer to this as a "virtually safe" level. It is important to note that the term “de minimis doctrine" is used as a defense in legal matters in the Court System and may in fact represent an admission of guilt, and not as a justification or approval by the Board of Trustees when making decisions where one knows that the decision is in fact “technically illegal”. In a lawsuit, a court applies the de minimis doctrine to avoid the resolution of trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny. Appellate courts also use the de minimis doctrine when appropriate. De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention. Most honest citizens in the modern world recognize that, but for the de minimis doctrine, these actions would technically constitute a violation of law. The de minimis defense is a discretionary matter for the Court to decide, and not the Doverbrook Board of Trustees. It would however send a clear message that notwithstanding a crime has been committed, an accused should be acquitted merely because the crime is trivial, rather than leaving the triviality to be taken into account at a sentencing hearing. The standard for determining whether a particular change is more than de minimis requires an examination of the particular facts and circumstances in each case, with principal emphasis placed on an assessment "of the nature and extent of the effect or reasonably foreseeable effect of the change on conditions of the Unit Owners. Equitable considerations will also be taken into account in balancing the various interests involved. Before the “de minimis doctrine” can be applied in a legal matter before the Court, all the relevant facts bearing upon defendant's conduct and the nature of the attendant circumstances regarding commission of the offense should be shown to and considered by the judge. There is no policy or regulation of the Doverbrook Bylaws that notes the use of “de minimis” in any way, and there is no president for its use. There are no previous provisions permitting the Doverbrook Board of Directors to exercise “de minimis” infractions, and there is no precedent for it. Under these circumstances, the encroachment cannot be considered minimal or de minimis in nature. We have found no authority supporting the compelled conveyance of such a substantial breach of the law. The Doverbrook Impeachment Committee asserts that that the “de minimis” doctrine either is inapplicable is being misapplied. Examples of Application of the de minimis rule most commonly are used with copyright, copyright infringement, U.S. tax rules, and IRS guidelines.
From a legal point of view, "no controlling legal authority" -- may be a better defense for the Doverbrook Board of Trustees.
Follow-up At the Doverbrook Unit Owners Meeting of March 31, 2008, Rosemary Costa stated that she and/or the Board of Trustees, had not requested the "De Minimum" defense from the legal firm of Bacon & Wilson. Rosemary Costa then stated that both she and Joanne from Appleton Corporation spoke with Bacon & Wilson on this issue. Beverly Martin at the Doverbrook Unit Owners Meeting of March 31, 2008, stated that this was false. Beverly Martin stated that she had called the office of Bacon & Wilson, and that in fact Bacon & Wilson stated that " the Doverbrook Board of Trustees had gone too far", and that the architectural changes were not "De Minimis". In addition Bacon & Wilson stated that this has "opened a can of worms".
|
||||
| © Unit Owners of Doverbrook Association. 2007. All Rights Reserved. | ||||||
