A Residency Question for Eastpointe’s Magistrate, or The Tale of Two Very Different Water Records

A reader’s tip led to a court-file address, years of exceptionally low water use, and a rental immediately next door to Judge Galen. The records raise concrete questions about her magistrate’s residency and what court officials knew.

By Rita Williams · September 27, 2026

Today, a reader brought Clutch Justice a fairly straightforward question: where does Judge Kathleen Galen’s magistrate actually live?

The tip alleged that Mark Makoski is registered to vote at an Eastpointe property but lives in Warren. The problem? Makoski serves as magistrate of the 38th District Court, a role confirmed by the court’s own website. His voting residence matters to his participation in Eastpointe elections and could also matter to the qualifications under which he was appointed.

Court records list the Eastpointe address under investigation for Makoski himself. And that Eastpointe rental sits right next door to Judge Galen’s residence.

According to Secretary of State records, Makoski’s address places him in Eastpointe, specifically in Precinct 1, inside the court’s jurisdiction. It lists an absentee-ballot application received in August and a ballot mailed September 24. The absentee-ballot application was received just seven days after the Court of Claims action challenging Richard Goodman’s residency on August 18 and six days after the August 19 Oakland County hearing in the Goodman litigation. But this was just one piece of the puzzle, because the reader strongly recommended that I review the water records associated with the voter registration.

The Eastpointe water history tells a fascinating story, because for years, the pattern repeats: zero recorded usage one month, zero the next, perhaps one unit the following month, then back to zero. In the usage entries dated January through June 2026, the property recorded exactly two units.

The reader’s tip also pointed to a Warren property associated with Makoski and his wife, so I pulled those utility records, too. The account shows sustained consumption, month after month, with considerably more use and variation across the year. Its January-through-June entries total 57 units.

Following the records through August makes the contrast just as clear: three units in Eastpointe and 89 in Warren. The reading schedules are about two weeks apart, but the difference is substantial, demonstrating two vastly different patterns of property use.

This is exactly why I keep telling you to send me tips. A reader raised a question, and checking the records turned up something worth pursuing. This is Clutch Intel in action.

In Eastpointe, the Meter Barely Moves

On January 15, 2026, the Eastpointe meter stood at 19. It remained there in February and March, reached 20 in April, stayed there through June, and reached 21 in July. By September, it was still at 21.

A quick note on the numbers: the meter advanced two units between the January and September readings. The January entry also includes one unit used since December. That is why adding the usage entries gives two units for January through June and three through August. The table below includes that January usage so both accounts are compared the same way.

The low consumption predates this election year. The meter rose from four in December 2022 to eight in December 2023, then to 14 in December 2024 and 18 in December 2025. That amounts to four units in one year, six in the next, and four in the year after that. Repeated zero-use intervals run throughout the history.

Source: Eastpointe BS&A utility history, pp. 1–7.

Then There’s Warren

In Warren, the first six readings of 2026 show six, five, six, four, 11, and 25 units used. That is the 57-unit total. July adds another 13 and August adds 19, bringing the eight-month figure to 89. The meter’s running total checks out, too: it rose from 1,454 at the end of December to 1,543 at the end of August.

Go back through the earlier Warren records and the regular consumption continues, with higher use in several warmer months. Meanwhile, the Eastpointe meter creeps forward a handful of units a year. Put the histories next to each other and the contrast keeps showing up.

Source: Warren BS&A utility history, pp. 1–19; 2026 entries, pp. 1–2.

Three Units Sounds Small. Here Is How Small.

Understanding how minuscule this is, requires understanding how Eastpointe and Warren bill for water. Both cities bill consumption in units of 100 cubic feet. Warren’s billing guide defines the unit, and Eastpointe’s ordinance uses the same volume. One unit is approximately 748 gallons, often rounded to 750.

So those three Eastpointe units represent roughly 2,244 to 2,250 gallons from the December 2025 reading through August 2026. Warren’s 89 units represent about 66,572 to 66,750 gallons over its comparable period. The reading schedules are about two weeks apart, and each comparison covers roughly eight months.

Now put that next to ordinary residential use. The EPA cites an average of 82 gallons per person per day at home, based on USGS’s 2015 estimates. Over a 30-day month, that is 2,460 gallons, or about 3.3 of these billing units.

The Eastpointe property’s entire recorded consumption over roughly eight months is less than that national average for one person in a single month. That is the scale hiding behind the small-looking number “3.”

Warren averaged approximately 273 gallons a day across the property during its 244-day interval. We do not know the household size, so that figure cannot tell us how many people lived there or who they were. It does show sustained consumption alongside Eastpointe’s roughly nine gallons a day over 243 days.

Travel, vacancy, household size, outdoor watering, and meter problems can affect those numbers. Water use is not a legal residency test. But when the question is whether someone actually lived at a property, years of zero- and one-unit months are relevant evidence of how that property was being used. That is why these histories deserve an explanation.

But Warren Keeps Showing Up in the Paper Trail

The water records are not the only place Warren appears.

Public attorney directories reviewed by Clutch repeatedly associate Mark Makoski with Warren. Avvo currently lists his law office in Warren, and both Martindale-Hubbell and FindLaw identify Makoski with the same Warren location. FindLaw’s listing was updated in February 2024. These are professional-directory records, not proof of residential occupancy, but they provide another independent trail connecting Makoski to Warren.

And the Warren connection extends beyond attorney directories. Public business records have also associated Makoski with Warren, and Clutch previously reported that the paid-for-by address appearing on Galen’s reelection campaign materials is the same Warren address tied in public records to Makoski’s law practice.

None of those records, standing alone, proves that Makoski lives in Warren. An attorney can maintain an office somewhere other than his residence, and an old directory entry can remain online long after circumstances change.

But that is precisely why the records are being examined together.

The Eastpointe address appears in court and voter records and is attached to a property recording extraordinarily little water use. Meanwhile, Warren appears repeatedly across the utility history and Makoski’s broader public paper trail. The question is not whether any single database can tell us where he lives. It cannot. The question is whether all of these independent records ultimately point in the same direction once the registration, rental, appointment and address histories are complete.

A Paid Bill Is Not Proof of an Occupied Home

The Eastpointe property continued receiving bills even when the meter did not move. For February 15 through March 15, 2026, the account was billed $48.73 while the reading stayed at 19.

Eastpointe’s ordinance includes a fixed monthly ready-to-serve charge, and the account lists charges beyond water consumption. Keeping an account current therefore does not establish that anyone is using water there regularly. The bill and the meter answer different questions.

The Owner, the Rental Question, and the City’s File

The ownership records add another piece. Eastpointe property records identify Mark Papale as the owner and show a 0% principal-residence exemption. The utility account, meanwhile, is addressed simply to “Occupant.”

Papale publicly identifies himself as the founder and owner of Bella Casa Properties LLC, a real-estate investment business. Taken together, these details point toward a third-party-owned rental property, rather than a home owned by Makoski.

The tax designation needs to be read correctly. Michigan’s principal-residence exemption generally concerns an owner’s qualifying principal home. A 0% entry does not prove that a tenant occupied the property, and renting a home does not prevent it from being someone’s lawful voting residence. The rental file is where the next questions belong.

The water records do not tell us who was actually living in the Eastpointe house, which is exactly why the rental file matters. If this address was in fact being used to satisfy residency, voting, or appointment requirements without functioning as an ordinary residence, the city’s own records may help show how that arrangement was structured. The rental file could positively identify who was listed as a tenant or occupant, when that designation began, and whether the paperwork matches the voter registration, court records, and years of minimal water use. Those records may not answer the entire question, but they could show whether this was a legitimate residence or a paper arrangement designed to make the address work on paper.

The Election Is Already Underway

Now come back to the voter lookup. The dates are August 25 for the application and September 24 for the ballot mailing, ahead of the November 3 election. That is why I am following the registration records alongside the utility histories. The election process is already moving.

The “Ballot received” field is blank. The printout therefore does not establish that a ballot was returned, accepted, or counted. It also says “Permanent Ballot List: Yes.” Under Michigan’s permanent absentee-ballot system, a clerk can send ballots automatically for future elections. The mailing does not, on its own, show that the voter submitted a new application this year.

Michigan’s absentee-ballot application requires applicants to certify that they are qualified and registered in the identified jurisdiction and that their statements are true. It warns that a false statement in the application is a misdemeanor. The application or permanent-list enrollment and the clerk’s processing history would show what was represented, by whom, and when.

If a false statement was made to obtain registration or a ballot, its significance would not necessarily disappear because the ballot had not yet been counted.

The voter-registration and absentee records could show whether this address was simply where Makoski actually lived or whether it was being used to make his Eastpointe residency work on paper. I want to know exactly when he registered at the Eastpointe address, whether he was previously registered in Warren, what residence he represented to election officials, and what he personally signed or certified along the way. The same records should also establish when he joined the permanent absentee-ballot list and whether the ballot mailed on September 24 is ultimately returned.

The timing matters more than one may think. The records currently show an absentee-ballot application received on August 25, but they do not yet tell us when Makoski changed his voter registration to Eastpointe. Once I have that date, I can put it directly against the water history and see whether the property was showing meaningful residential use when he began representing it as his voting residence. If the registration appears during the same years that the meter barely moved, that would make the paper trail even harder to explain as ordinary residential use.

What Michigan Law Requires

If you’re new to courts and elections, it may not immediately make sense why Makoski’s living arrangements matter. Under MCL 168.11, the relevant place is where a person habitually sleeps, keeps personal belongings, and regularly lodges. When a person has more than one residence, including a residence separate from a spouse’s, the statute generally looks to where the person spends the greater part of the time.

Owning a house does not settle that question. Neither does a spouse’s residence automatically determine the other spouse’s voting address. The inquiry is about the individual’s living arrangements.

The state’s Election Crimes Manual identifies separate offenses involving false sworn statements to obtain registration or vote under MCL 168.933, and willfully offering or attempting to vote while not a qualified and registered elector under MCL 168.932a(c). Establishing an offense requires evidence of the relevant statements, conduct, and other legal elements. The water records establish none of those on their own.

IIf the records show that Makoski used an address that was not actually his residence in order to register, maintain his registration, or obtain an absentee ballot, then the issue is not simply whether the ballot was ultimately counted. The relevant conduct could begin much earlier, with whatever representations or certifications he made to election officials.

And that is why the underlying registration and absentee records matter in telling the whole story. A clerk mailing a ballot proves only that the system processed the information it had. It does not establish that the information provided by the voter was accurate. The real question is what Makoski represented about his residence, when he represented it, and whether those representations matched where he was actually living at the time.

Residency Also Matters to the Job He Holds

Makoski exercises judicial authority as a district court magistrate. Whether he meets the qualifications for that position matters independently of whether he has cast a ballot. This is a question about the legal basis for his authority, not simply where he receives mail.

The Michigan Judicial Institute’s magistrate benchbook explains MCL 600.8501(2): a magistrate generally must be a registered elector in the district served. The statute allows an adjoining-district elector when the appointment is made under an authorized concurrent-jurisdiction plan. It also addresses governing-body approval for appointments in third-class districts.

If Makoski actually resides in Eastpointe and is properly registered there, that addresses the ordinary local elector requirement. If he lives outside the 38th District, the next question is whether his appointment falls within the statutory exception. Living elsewhere does not automatically answer whether he can lawfully hold this particular appointment.

Macomb County’s administrative-order index lists a multiple-district plan involving the 38th and neighboring courts.but that does not answer the question that matters here: whether Makoski’s own appointment was actually made under a lawful concurrent-jurisdiction exception.

That is why the appointment paperwork matters. Clutch is seeking the order appointing Makoski, any required governing-body approval, the residency information he provided, the court’s address records and change history, and the administrative order or agreement the court relies on for his authority. Those records should show whether his appointment was structured in a way that lawfully allowed him to live outside the district, or whether Eastpointe residency was part of what made the appointment work on paper.

There is also a pretty big difference between living somewhere else and affirmatively misrepresenting where you live to obtain or maintain a judicial appointment. The latter would raise a separate, potentially more serious question about honesty and fitness for office. No such false representation has been established here. Any employment or disciplinary consequence would depend on the evidence and governing procedures, not simply the water totals.

Makoski’s Job Depends on the Court He Serves

There is another piece of the Mark Makoski story worth examining here, because unlike Judge Kathleen Galen, Makoski does not hold an independently elected office with a protected term.

Michigan law provides that district court magistrates “serve at the pleasure of the judges of the district court.” The Michigan Judicial Institute likewise explains that magistrates are appointed judicial officers whose authority is controlled by the district court, with their appointment and scope of authority documented through a local administrative order.

Clearly, that creates some issues here.

Makoski’s continued service as magistrate is not insulated from the judge who controls the court. If leadership of the 38th District Court changes, an incoming judge would not simply inherit an independently tenured magistrate who is guaranteed to remain in place. Michigan’s court administration guidance expressly states that magistrates serve at the pleasure of the district judge or judges.

By itself, that does not prove Makoski has acted improperly or that he has taken steps to protect Galen. But it certainly does create a legitimate question of institutional self-interest.

If the person who controls your appointment, authority and continued position is facing public scrutiny or an election challenge, you have a personal employment interest in the continuation of that administration. That is especially important when evaluating any conduct by Makoski involving Galen’s critics, court records, administrative controversies, election-related issues or matters that could affect public perception of the court.

This has never been about whether Makoski and Galen work together; obviously they do. What’s more important, is whether Makoski has exercised governmental authority in circumstances where protecting Galen’s position could also protect his own.

And it is exactly why the relationship deserves scrutiny based on records and conduct, rather than being dismissed as ordinary courthouse politics.

Three Questions, Three Different Answers to Establish

The records need to answer three questions: where does Makoski actually reside under Michigan law; does his voter registration match that residence; and does his residence and elector status satisfy the requirements of his magistrate appointment, directly or through a lawful exception?

Those questions share facts, but their legal consequences differ. A valid adjoining-district appointment would not authorize an inaccurate voting registration. An accurate voting registration elsewhere would not, by itself, establish that his appointment was invalid. The appointment and election records need to be examined together without treating them as the same issue.

The Court-File Address Is Next Door to Galen

The documentary basis has moved beyond the original tip. The Eastpointe property is the address listed for Makoski in court records, and that rental is immediately adjacent to Galen’s residence. The link between Makoski and this property is documented. Whether he actually lived there under Michigan’s residency rules is the question the records now raise.

An official file can establish which address someone used without establishing where that person habitually slept. The next records should show when Makoski supplied the address, how the court used it, and what representations accompanied it.

For Galen, this was the property next door to her own home. That is relevant context for asking about her knowledge of the arrangement. Proximity alone does not establish that she knew where Makoski actually slept, knew any representation was inaccurate, or participated in misconduct.

And If Galen Knew?

I’m probably being generous when I say “if” here, because Makoski was using the property next door to Galen as his court-file Eastpointe address. To say she didn’t know he may not be living there, would be intellectually dishonest.

So if all of the final investigation’s evidence shows that she knew a residency representation was false and helped maintain or conceal it, the inquiry would absolutely extend to her own conduct.

The Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to respect the law and support public confidence in the judiciary. Canon 3(B) addresses diligent administration, standards for officials under a judge’s control, and appropriate disciplinary measures concerning unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer of which the judge becomes aware.

The next records need to show who knew what, and when. Clutch is seeking court personnel records listing Makoski’s address, his appointment paperwork and related correspondence, employment and administrative records describing his residence, and communications involving Makoski, Galen, and court administration. Those records can then be lined up against the rental file and voter-registration history to see whether the same Eastpointe address was being used consistently across the court, the city, and election records.

The timeline becomes crucial, because there is a big difference between having an address on file and knowing that address may not reflect where someone actually lives. If the records show that Galen or court staff became aware of a residency problem and continued relying on the Eastpointe address anyway, that raises a whole new set of ethical quandaries that cannot be excused away as simple administrative ignorance.

If a judge knowingly helped make a false representation, concealed material facts, or used judicial authority to protect misconduct, those actions could become the subject of a separate disciplinary inquiry. The Michigan Judicial Institute’s ethics guidance explains that judicial-conduct violations can support discipline without a criminal conviction. Knowing about an accusation, however, does not automatically make a judge a criminal accomplice.

So, What Comes Next?

This all started as a simple residency question and turned into something much bigger. The Eastpointe address tied to Makoski in court records shows years of extraordinarily low water use. The Warren property associated with his household shows the opposite: sustained residential consumption month after month. And the Eastpointe house is not his property. It is a rental immediately next door to Judge Galen.

Now add in the rest of the paper trail. Makoski is registered to vote in Eastpointe. An absentee ballot has already been mailed. His magistrate position also carries residency and elector requirements unless a lawful exception applies. At this point, the question is no longer just where Makoski sleeps. It is whether the Eastpointe address was being used across multiple systems to satisfy requirements that may depend on residency, and whether the records behind those systems actually match reality.

The next round of records is already in motion. The Eastpointe rental file should help establish who the city recorded as occupying the property and when. The election records should show when Makoski began using the Eastpointe address for voter registration, what he certified, and what happened with the absentee ballot. The appointment and court records should show what residency information was used to support his magistrate position, whether an exception applied, and what Galen or court administration knew about the arrangement.

Together, those records should answer the question the water history cannot: whether the Eastpointe address reflected an actual residence or whether it was functioning primarily as an address on paper.

And there is already enough here to justify asking that question. In the first six reading months of 2026, the Eastpointe property recorded two units of water use while the Warren property recorded 57. Through August, it was three units against 89. That is not a subtle difference. It is years of barely moving water use at one property alongside sustained residential consumption at the other.

This article inadvertently became the testing ground for Clutch Intel, and it showed me exactly what I hoped it would: one reader tip can turn into a web of addresses, records, relationships, timelines, claims, and unanswered questions that become much easier to see once everything is connected in one place.

So, a very special thank you is in order to Clutch Intel’s very first tipster. You handed me the first real-world test of a system I built to make this kind of reporting better, and I would say the test was a success. One tip opened the door. The records did the rest.