Council asks for detailed report after DAH says vendor collected $13.7M; members raise concerns about seniors and settlements

Detroit’s Committee of the Whole asked the Department of Appeals and Hearings (DAH) to return in one week with a detailed report on its contingency collections contract after DAH officials said the vendor has collected roughly $13.7 million since placements began in March 2022.

DAH Director Julianne Pastrill told the committee that since placements in March 2022 the contractor, Linebarger, Goggin, Blair and Sampson LLP, has collected "over $13,700,000 on behalf of the city." She said those funds are returned to the city’s general fund.

Members pressed for more detail. "I want to see data," Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway said. "I want to see what has been collected, what would have been collected, and the amount that the company is receiving in the collections." Callaway asked for year‑by‑year breakdowns from 2021 through 2025 and for a report on outstanding balances, what the company was paid, and how collections have been used.

DAH described the vendor’s contingency fee schedule on the record: 10% for files placed within six months of judgment, 25% for files placed more than six months after judgment, and 30% for cases that proceed to Third Circuit garnishment. DAH staff said most placements now occur automatically after judgment reminders and 30 days unpaid, which reduces the universe of older files transferred to the vendor.

Councilmembers raised community equity concerns. Several asked how many collections involve residential property owners or seniors and whether garnishments are reaching Social Security or other protected income. Pastrill said DAH can waive blight fines for owner‑occupied, low‑income property owners at hearing in limited circumstances but noted that state assessment fees cannot be waived; she said the department will provide the requested breakdowns. She also said garnishment actions proceed only after multiple contacts and that property owners can seek to set aside default judgments.

Members also asked whether large settlements or consent agreements reported in the press — including prior high‑profile matters involving chain retailers and multi‑property owners — were remitted to the state and how such negotiated settlements affect DAH remittances. Pastrill said settlement negotiations are handled by the law department and offered to research the specifics and provide written responses.

The committee approved a motion to bring the item back in a week so DAH can provide the requested data and a fuller accounting of collections, vendor payments, remittances, and the share of collections that returned to the general fund.