Historical June 1998 article. Dates, prices, services and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
March 31, 1998 – Div. 29 – Small Claims Court – St. Louis, USA: Geiler vs. Cheatham.
The Judge gives an opening speech recommending to all parties that they get an attorney. “This is not sand lot ball.
The rules of evidence and procedure apply.” Although I am an attorney, I am also the Plaintiff in a smalltime lawsuit about a big-time problem, 6154 Delmar–a building in my backyard which is rotting out from under the neighborhood while serving as haven for crooks, creatures and crud, and I am mighty happy to have an attorney this date.
The defendant, an absentee property owner from St. Louis County, has appealed my win against him back in August the year before.
Now we are “on the record” and starting all over again in a trial de novo as the rules require in the appeal of a small claims case.
My case this day is one of three “test cases” from the 6100 block of Washington involving “problem properties.” Mary Mason has won her case against the owner of the Star Clothing building on Delmar, and she has prevailed on appeal. Without Vivi Wolf, the Neighborhood Stabilization Officer, neither Mary Mason nor I would have begun, much less continued, to pursue this process.
The first phase was easy. Nine months or so before this, we appeared in a court filled with a mass of people like ourselves, each yapping as their name was called by the bailiff about some wrong or other done to them. Time was limited.
We all turned in a self-addressed stamped envelope and awaited the judicial reply to our cry. That was Round One. 1 was loaded for bear. Mr. Cheatham’s only response was that he was a veteran with health problems who planned to take care of his building if only the Court would just give him a little more time. (Yes, he had owned the building for 17 years and it had been vacant and needing attending for the last 12.) That first day, neither Mary nor I had counsel, and neither did Cheatham. but the case was not “on the record.” This day, I am represented by Mr. Eddie Roth, a generous, talented and caring young attorney with Leritz, Plunkert, and Bruning, PC Attorneys, One City Center, St. Louis, MO. 63104. Not only is Mr. Roth the right man for the job, he has agreed to take the Rosedale cases pro bono because he believes in this process to solve this kind of problem. Eddie Roth knows what he is doing.
He has tackled this type case before in the Shaw neighborhood.
He counsels me that all the things I have amassed (30 photos, police reports, environmental court reports, letters, witnesses, mug shots of yahoos, blah, blah, blah) are not relevant to my statutory claim that 6154 Delmar is a “nuisance” under Missouri statutory law that is costing me money.
He takes one letter and four photos and marks them as exhibits. l feel foolish (all witnesses want to say more than is needed) and grateful for the guidance. Attorneys in this court look different somehow from the criminal defense bar I am used to meeting.
They seem less sleek, more casual, less aggressive.
The forum is more friendly, less dramatic. Case No. 1 is called.
It is full of insider mechanics’ talk.
The Court must make a “Judge Wopner” decision. One party has an attorney, the other is winging it.
The lawyerless man will not play well “on the record” I feel sure.
He needs Eddie Roth!
My case is called.
I am on the stand, right hand in the air. Because Eddie is comfortable, I am comfort-able. Mr. Cheatham’s attorney seems genuinely impressed that I have appeared with Mr. Roth.
The Court is solicitous too.
With Eddie’s help, our case is crisp and to the point: Cheatham’s building is a shambles, an eye-sore, a fire-hazard, a health hazzard, a detriment to me effecting the fair rental value of my property.
The Cheatham building has kept the St. Louis City Fire Department, Police Department, Neighborhood Stabilization Office, Forestry Service, City Counselor’s Office, Circuit Attorney’s Office, State and Municipal Courts busy for years.
I turn in my envelope and await the reply.
Now I have a judgement for damages and I need to hire an attorney to collect it! Cheatham’s weeds are up past the ugly plastic sheeting he laid down last summer to keep from mowing, and someone has dumped a load of tree cuttings over the bright orange plastic fencing Cheatham hung up just before court.
This would all be more demoralizing (or hilarious) than I could stand but for Eddie Roth, Vivi Wolf and Mary Mason, who banded together and tempted me out of “self-help” measures that appeal to my darker, vindictive side. Bottom line, anarchy isn’t friendly and the court system is.
I would have liked instant results, but the Court’s ruling vindicated all of us In the neighborhood, who must live with Cheatham’s building while he lives with himself.
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, June 1998.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1998_06.pdf, printed page(s) 3, 7; PDF page(s) 3, 7.
