[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The first case on calendar for argument is Friedman versus City of Fairfax.

[00:00:05] Speaker 04:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Richard Harris on behalf of Kobe Friedman.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, and I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal, and I'll keep an eye on the clock.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
To survive a motion to dismiss, Kobe Friedman need only allege plausible facts that show that he may be entitled to relief, and that's what he did here.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
After Mr. Friedman asserted his rights as a homeowner and upset town officials, he was singled out, his permit was revoked, and he lost the chance to build the home he wanted.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
The district court erred first in claiming that Mr. Friedman had no vested interest, vested right in his permit.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
Under California law, only two things need to be shown in order to receive a vested right in a construction permit, that a party has to receive the permit, and that they have to conduct substantial work.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
This was done in this case.

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
But doesn't the work have to be done in compliance with the permit though?

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
So work was done in compliance with the permit.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
But the work that was done that was not in compliance with the permit?

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
So we believe that work, that all of the work was done in compliance with the permit.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
Specifically building code 107.4 allows Mr. Friedman to complete work which is not in compliance with the permit and is not a safety issue.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
If we disagree with your argument on that point, what does that do to your position?

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
So first we believe that if you disagree with my argument on that point, then the building officials are stopped from claiming that Mr. Let me explore that just a little bit.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
If your position is not correct about the California statute that you say allows you to proceed and then get permission later, then how would you have a vested interest in doing the work that was not approved previously?

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
So in June 2023, Mr. Lockaby, the building official, told Mr. Friedman that he could continue the work except for the two areas where Mr. Friedman stated that he, or where Mr. Lockaby believed were outside the scope of the permit.

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
But now you're going to a stopple.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
But you would not have a vested right under the scenario that Judge Walton just pointed out.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
So once Mr. Freeman began substantial work on the project, say November 2022, well before any work is not in compliance with the permit, at that point he has a vested right.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
In the conclusion of the permitted work?

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
So as he is conducting the work,

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
Perhaps an example would be helpful if the permit allowed him to do work between 9 and 5 p.m., but one day at the end of the work, he continued his work to 530 in violation of the permit.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
It wouldn't be that his vested right would be extinguished.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
Well, let me, let me, so suppose he's permitted to build a one-story house and he wants to go and start building a four-story house.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
You wouldn't say that he has a vested right in building a four-story house for after he's been approved for a one-story house, would you?

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
He would not have a vested right in building the four-story house if he had a permit for a one-story house.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
So just to establish that, there's not a vested interest in a scope of work that is outside the contours of the permit if we don't agree with you about the building code argument.

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
And so now you're relying on a different argument for Estoppel saying, well, he relied on what Mr. Lockerbie said.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
Yes, so Mr. Friedman is not stating that for the areas of the project that are outside the scope of the permit, he has a vested right in those areas.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
What he does have is a vested right in the permit.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
And I believe this is another spot where the district court erred.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
The district court wanted to claim that he had a vested right in portions of the project and allowed us limited leave to amend on that point.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
But the project is just the physical item which is there on the property.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
The right that he has is to, in this case perhaps, remove anything that is not, remove the stairs, close in the deck, make the building consistent with the permit and continue to construct.

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
That's the vested right.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
But you didn't plead that he had a vested right to do those things and was prevented from doing those things.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
He had a, his vested right is in the permit, which... But he's going beyond the permit.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Right, so for the portions, when he has his vested right in the permit, he has a right to construct consistent with the permit.

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
Leaving aside my argument about the building code, once we get to where there is an alleged violation of the permit, right,

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
That doesn't change the fact that he has a vested right in the construction consistent with the permit.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
But did you request the opportunity to remove the portions of the building that were not consistent with the permit?

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
Did you request that from the city?

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
So, Mr. Freeman.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
That's a yes or no.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
The Mr. Freeman was involved in negotiations with the city from June 2023 until August 2023 when the red tag was placed without a hearing.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
But the problem is, if you did not request from the city that you be allowed to rectify the portions of the project that were not consistent with the permit, how can you say there's a violation of due process if you never asked for that?

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
Maybe I can answer it differently.

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
The complaint specifically states that there was negotiations during that period between June 2023 and August 2023 when Council for Friedman reached out to Council for the Town and requested that all changes would be submitted for approval within 60 days and that Town did not respond to this request.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
And on that

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
More than that, if the complaint is missing the specific request that you have, right, of those negotiations of trying to bring his permit into compliance between June 2023 and August 2023, then Mr. Freeman should be given leave to amend to add those facts.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
Did he submit plans that showed, altered plans that showed the work that he wanted to do or was doing?

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Mr. Freeman did submit it.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
If you look at the complaint in June, 2023, he did submit plans to the building official who has authority himself to approve plans.

[00:07:15] Speaker 00:
And that's when the building official came up with his agreement, which he gave Mr. Freeman, right?

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
Do not work on these two items until they are approved by the town or you otherwise resolve the issue.

[00:07:27] Speaker 00:
But you can continue work on the rest of your building.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
Did

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
Mr. Friedman submit plans consistent with what he wanted to do to the town authority to get that approved since June twenty twenty three.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
Mr. Freeman did not submit any other plans to the town to move forward with that approval.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
So the plans that were submitted in June twenty twenty three were for what.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
They were submitted to the building official on his request that the building code allows the building official to approve some changes to the plans, and he has discretion to determine.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
And specifically, what were the changes that were sought in that plan that was submitted?

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
So the changes are detailed in the complaint.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
There are two.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
There is a stairs on the back deck, and there is a porch on the front.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Neither were considered by Mr. Lockaby to be a safety issue.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
But were they within the confines of the permit that was issued?

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
So those items were, so we can test that the

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
Building code 107.4 allows Mr. Freeman to make these kinds of changes, not the changes like a two-story house to a four-story house, but the changes like adding a... But the permit as granted by the city did not include those.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
Is that fair?

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
If you looked at the permit, you would not see those particular changes.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
In a moment ago, you said that in submitting the plans to the official, he said, do not work on the unapproved things.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
You'd have to get formal approval for that, but you can continue working on the approved things.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
So why did Mr. Friedman think that he should just go ahead and start working on the unapproved things anyway?

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
So I want to be really clear because the district court did not get this either.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
Mr. Friedman did not work on the unapproved things.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
From June 2023,

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
He did not do any work on the unapproved items.

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lockaby falsely determined, and this is paragraph 38 of the First Amendment complaint, falsely determined that there had been work on the back deck and on that basis handed out his red tag without hearing, right?

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
That is the red tag that the Superior Court determined was in fact illegal.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
And so that issue was resolved.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
by the Superior Court, correct?

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
Saying that the red tag should not have been issued.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
Yes, the Superior Court resolved that the red tag should not have been issued.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
And so how can that be a basis for a due process violation if it were heard and resolved by the Superior Court?

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
If you're speaking to the res judicata issue?

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
Well, I'm just saying, how can that be a due process violation if you

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
got a hearing and the issue was resolved, albeit in a different form.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
But how can there be a due process violation for the city if the issue was resolved?

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
So the Superior Court determined that there was a violation and then allowed the permit to be reinstated.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
California law, and we state this both in our brief,

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
essentially a successive pleading first for the writ of mandate and then for the damages.

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
But as a practical matter, what would a hearing before the city have accomplished at that point?

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
Well, if there was a hearing, if Mr. Lockaby had followed the law and provided a hearing in August 2023, the first thing that Mr. Friedman would get is to be able to actually determine what what Mr. Lockaby would say about the

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
offer an opportunity he gave in June 2023, right?

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
But if your client never submitted the plans that showed the work that he wanted to do, and lost as to following Judge Robinson's question, he never sought that approval.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
So he wasn't deprived of due process rights with respect to a hearing on plans that he never submitted.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
Well, to be clear, the plans had not been submitted yet.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
These plans are not, this isn't like a quick, you know, opportunity to just put these together, right?

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
They need to be, the package needs to be put together and submitted.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
There were negotiations going on between the town and Freedmen's Council at this time.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
Council, you're down to three minutes.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
Did you want to save your remaining time for rebuttal?

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I would.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
Good morning, may it please the court?

[00:12:31] Speaker 01:
Amy Hoyt, appearing on behalf of Appellees.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
I wanted to start by touching on a couple comments made by counsel during his portion of the argument.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
There was a comment made that the plans had been submitted and referring back to August 9th of 2022.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
However, there's no allegations in the first minute complaint that the plans were submitted in June 2023 and I would also respond to the comment that

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
Mr. Friedman did not conduct any work on the changed elements.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
If we look at paragraph 31 of the First Amendment Complaint, and this was referenced in Council's argument, Council Rotown offering that Friedman would cease work on items described in 24B and 24C.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
those were two of the changed elements, and request a modification and submit plans.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
So the first amended complaint clearly shows that the plans were never submitted, that Freeman was continuing to do work on the elements of the project that were changed.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
That's in the first amended complaint, and we must assume those are true.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
Counsel, you do acknowledge that the Superior Court ruled that the red tag notice was not properly

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
What's your response?

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
How does that affect this case?

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
It affects this case in that that was a writ of mandate decision under 1085 of California Code of Civil Procedure which pertains to mandatory ministerial acts.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
That due process was not raised in that claim, so I do not believe that that means that he necessarily has due process rights violated.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
And I would refer back to

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
the court's reasoning in the ruling, which we agree with and explained in our papers, that there was no entitlement, no right or entitlement pled to, no entitlement pled to a right that would trigger due process protection in the First Amendment complaint.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
All that was alleged, essentially, was inverse condemnation and takings claims, which are not, which are not the same as due process.

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
But the Superior Court decision was based on a procedural

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
It was.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
Claim, right?

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
It was.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
And so why doesn't that affect whether or not there was adequate due process provided by the city?

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
Well, I guess our response to that would be the res judicata argument that we made in our papers that

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
To the extent there was a due process claim, it could have been raised at that time and it wasn't.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
In the appellant's reply brief, they cite a case saying that you can't apply res judicata to inverse claims because you can split basically your takings from your damages.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
But we're not arguing that it applies to the inverse claims.

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
We're arguing that it applies to the due process claims.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
So that could have been raised and it wasn't.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
And under California law, it's precluded by res judicata.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
But you didn't bring up Rooster Tecada in front of the district court, did you?

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
No, we did not.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
As we state in our papers, that is an argument we raised for the first time.

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
However, because it is an issue of law, we do believe that it is appropriate for the court to consider it, at your discretion, of course.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
I mean, even if we don't consider it, I'm struggling to see what the due process violation is, because if, at the end of the day, Mr. Friedman got two hearings from the city, I think it was the Planning Commission first and then the City Council itself, over these issues, what's the nature of the due process, over a temporary suspension, what's the nature of the due process violation then?

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
We're struggling to see that too, and I think the district court was as well.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
And I think our harmless error argument in our appellee's brief plays on that as well, in that he did receive two hearings, had an opportunity to present his evidence, and did not.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
I suppose he is also arguing that he was entitled to cross-examine witnesses or have more protective features in those hearings that he did not get.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
What would you respond in that sense?

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
I believe the argument that he has a right to cross-examine comes from the Kelly v. Goldberg case.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
I don't have the exact language in my mind, but it does talk about the need for cross-examine or the ability or right to cross-examine if there are substantial questions

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
of fact.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
And there are no substantial questions of fact here.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
We have allegations in the First Amendment complaint that we must assume to be true.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
And those allegations are that Appellant changed the plans in three ways, that he was working on those plans, that Lockerbie told him

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
Look you need to submit modified plant modified plans showing these changes that you're doing you can work on what's approved in the permit But you cannot work on those and we have first submitted complaint allegations that he was working on them so The key facts here are not undisputed so because of that.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
There's no There's no need to have cross-examination cross-examination of a municipal attorney.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
It's very rare that you have cross-examination of

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
in a land use regulatory hearing, right?

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
That's highly unusual.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
And in this circumstance, the allegations pled in the petition really defeat the argument that, oh, there's these substantial questions that we need to cross-examine.

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
Counsel, what's your response to opposing counsel's estoppel argument that Mr. Locke could be represented, that he could continue to work?

[00:18:17] Speaker 04:
on the project?

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
According to the allegations, again, in the first semantic complaint, which we must assume to be true, Lockaby told him he could continue working on the permitted plans.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
He specifically said not to work on elements.

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
The changed elements are in paragraph 24 of the first semantic complaint.

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
There's A, B, and C. And Lockaby specifically told him not to work on elements B and C. And he did.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
So I think that's one argument that there was no reasonable reliance.

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
In addition,

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
Given that the permit specifically says in paragraph 15 that any changes to the modification would require new applications, I think that's condition 15.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
There's no reasonable person that would assume that they could build outside the permit and, you know, do whatever they want.

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
It's a rather absurd argument.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
It's a classic ask forgiveness, not permission argument.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
It's hardly new.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
It absolutely is.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
But I do have one question for you and that's how you deal with the argument that the permit is a form of property that's entitled to due process protections that weren't given before it is taken away and this permit was suspended, revoked and that's not disputed.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
So how do you deal with the permit as property?

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
The permit is a piece of paper and in and of itself,

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
So is my law license.

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
It's true.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
But it gives you the right to build what's approved in the permit.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
Outside of that, it has no value.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
And there's nothing alleged in the petition that says the value is anything other than the right to build the permit.

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
And I would point out that the district court did give leave to amend for a plaintiff appellant to flesh that theory out.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
But he chose not to.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
And he does, in fact, raise that argument in his briefing.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
Let's see about the page here.

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
Right, so I believe it's paragraph 20 of the opening brief.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
Appellant argues that he, quote, has a property right in the permit that the town already granted in reliance of which he completed substantial work, end quote.

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
I don't know what that is, if not the exact thing that the district court granted him leave to amend.

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
The district court said he could amend to allege facts about a vested right in the permit to construct those portions of the project approved in the permit.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
That would be a vested right if the permit.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
So is it your argument that the permit did not give him a vested right to proceed in accordance with the permit?

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
Well, we argue in the brief, and I believe it's supported by the Avco case and the Towne Colony case, which are California decisions, that once you exceed the scope of your permit, you lose your vested right.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
Exactly.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
But if he had not exceeded the scope of the permit,

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
he would have invested right in building in accordance with the permit.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
Do you agree with that?

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
I would agree with that, yes.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
And I mean, we wouldn't be here this morning if Appellant had decided to build the project that was approved or if Appellant had... Understood, but I was just questioning whether or not you agreed that it was a vested right, property right, to proceed in accordance with the permit.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
Once he had begun substantial work on it, yes.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
I don't think I agree that just because he had the permit, it was a vested right.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
I do believe AVCO requires expenditure of funds or substantial work to be completed.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
We don't have to resolve that point today.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
We do not.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
We do not.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
They may or may not agree, but.

[00:22:10] Speaker 01:
Thankfully.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
And I briefly wanted to touch on the building code 170.4 argument.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
Appellant quotes part of the statute, but not the whole thing.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
So I wanted to present the whole thing.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
which is, quote, work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of documents, of construction documents.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
So that's an end quote.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
So there's two mandatory provisions in section one of 7.4.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
Work performed must comply with the approved plans

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
And changes made to the approved plans must be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of plans.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in there that says you can build everything different than the plans and come to us at the end.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
That's not a reasonable interpretation of this.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
And it also conflicts with the plain language of the permit, which says you need to resubmit.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
And the building code expressly states that it does not preempt local ordinance, local legislation.

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
So unless the court has more questions, I'm prepared to submit.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
appears not thank you counsel thank you so much rebuttal thank you uh... just very briefly uh... i believe that the uh... the complaint as it was drafted if the inferences are taken it on behalf of mister freeman you would find that he did not work on the disputed items that's what he would plead to the extent that uh... right so for example uh...

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
Council pointed at paragraph 31, which is a statement about what Friedman's Council said about would-be ceasing work.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
But if you look at paragraph 38,

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
It's pled that Mr. Lockaby sends an email claiming falsely that Mr. Lockaby observed work on the back stairs.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
If you find those in conflict and if Mr. Freeman should be granted leave to amend to make clear that he in fact did not work on any of the disputed items.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
To the extent of the AVCO, I think it's important to recognize that in AVCO there was no permit.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
That was the dispute in that case.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
They were building a thing without a permit at all.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
Here we have a permit, and that's the thing, the right to continue to construct consistent with the permit.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
And in terms of building code 107.4, I think it needs to be interpreted in terms of section 103.1 of the building code, which is that all of the building code has to be interpreted on the basis of safety, and it's pled that there is no safety issue with any of these changes.

[00:24:58] Speaker 03:
So you've also pleaded a 1983 claim against the municipality.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
Where am I going to find the allegations as to who the final decision maker was creating the relevant policy?

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
The final decision maker for the relevant policy here, for the 1983 claim,

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
I'd have to find it, but I do believe it would be Mr. Lockaby who would make the final decision in terms of determining the building code and then handing out the violation.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
There's nothing else I can submit.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you to both counsel for your helpful arguments.

[00:25:39] Speaker 04:
The case just argued is submitted for decision by the court.