One Court of Justice

In an extraordinary development, the Michigan Supreme Court dismissed the putative class action brought by indigent criminal defendants against the State’s public defender system.  In May, the Court issued a unanimous order holding that a decision on the defendants’ motion for summary disposition was premature.  On defendants’ motion for reconsideration, the Court adopted the dissent from the Court of Appeals and concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable. Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway dissented. Read more »

The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in Rockford v. 63rd District Court, No. 140541.  The City of Rockford had challenged Kent County’s plan to have both of the 63rd District’s judges sit in a single location.  The trial court and the Court of Appeals had both rejected Rockford’s challenge concluding that the County was free to require the judges to sit in the same location.  Our earlier post on the Court of Appeals’ decision is here.  Justice Weaver would have granted leave to appeal.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in Tus v. Hurt, No. 139769.  The case arose after a mortgage company foreclosed on a house nearly 15 years after the last payment had been made and despite the fact that the house had been sold to a new owner.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the circuit court erred by quieting title in the name of the new owners who had failed to timely exercise their right of redemption because the circuit court’s action was an attempt to do equity contrary to the requirement of statutory law.  In the order granting leave, the Michigan Supreme Court instructed the parties to “include among the issues to be briefed the effect, if any, on this case of Brydges v. Emmendorfer, 311 Mich. 274, 279 (1945) (holding that “[t]he statute of limitations does not control the question of laches in equitable actions”) and Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co., 466 Mich. 660, 671-72 (2002) (concluding that courts should not avoid the application of a statute under the guise of equity because a statutory penalty is excessively punitive or harsh).”  The Court invited two sections of the State Bar of Michigan as well as the Michigan Association of Mortgage Professionals, the Michigan Mortgage Lenders Association, the Michigan Association of Realtors, the Michigan Association of Community Bankers, the Michigan Bankers Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, the University of Michigan Law School General Clinic, and the Michigan Association for Justice to file briefs amicus curiae.

Justice Young issued an order denying the Attorney Grievance Administrator’s motion for him to participate in Grievance Administrator v. Miller, No. 140081.  Justice Young declined to participate in whether to grant leave in Miller because the grievance arose from Shelden Miller’s alleged unethical conduct while handling an employment lawsuit against AAA.  While the lawsuit was pending, Justice Young was general counsel for AAA.  Citing the new recusal standard, Justice Young refused to participate in the case even though his tenuous connection to the underlying litigation did not create any actual bias against any party.  Justice Young explained, “I believe that no basis exists for my disqualification in this case, but I chose the safest course under the new amorphous disqualification rule by voluntarily declining to participate in order to avoid a strategic or politically motivated motion to disqualify me, followed by the second guessing of my colleagues.”  The result of Justice Young’s decision not to participate is that the Court was unable to muster the four votes necessary to grant leave to appeal and thus leave was denied over the dissent of Justices Corrigan, Markman, and Weaver.

On April 22, 2010, Justice Hathaway denied the defendant’s motion to disqualify her in People v. Aceval, No. 138577.  The defendant pled guilty to drug charges in Wayne County Circuit Court and now appeals that plea.  The defendant argued that Justice Hathaway could not be impartial because (1) she was a Wayne County Circuit Court judge at the time of the defendant’s conviction, (2) she was formerly married to a current Wayne County prosecutor, and (3) there is large-scale corruption among Wayne County judges and prosecutors.  Justice Hathaway rejected these arguments and defended the integrity of the Wayne County bench and bar.

Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly will deliver her State of the Judiciary address today at 2:00 p.m.  Her address will be carried live on Michigan Government Television, and the video will be posted later on the State Bar of Michigan’s “Virtual Court” page at http://www.michbar.org/courts/virtualcourt.cfm.  According to the Court’s press release, a chief justice last addressed a joint session of the Michigan Legislature in 2000, when Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver was the chief justice.

In a move signalling possible additional problems for Grand Rapids District Court Judge Benjamin Logan II, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded the Judicial Tenure Commission’s (“JTC”) Decision and Recommendation to the JTC.  The Court ordered the JTC to file a supplemental report explaining whether the JTC concluded that Judge Logan did not lie to the JTC despite the contradictory positions Judge Logan took in his answer to the complaint and in the stipulated facts set forth in the settlement agreement.  Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh would have adopted the recommendation of the JTC and publicly censured Judge Logan.

At a recent Wayne State University symposium on judicial selection, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called for change in the way Michigan elects its judges.  The full article, as printed in The Detroit News, can be found here.

On January 13, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals released for publication its third opinion in County Road Association of Michigan v. Michigan Public Transit Association, No. 288653, dismissing the case because the plaintiff government agencies lacked standing to sue the state’s agents and agencies for transferring money out of various transportation revenue funds during Governor Engler’s administration.  After nine years of litigation, including two appeals and a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that the county road commissions and public works departments had failed to allege that the challenged budgetary appropriations resulted in an injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large, failed to provide evidence of a causal connection between the alleged injury and the appropriations, and failed to demonstrate the appropriations caused them an actual injury.  The Court further ruled that the state had sovereign immunity from the plaintiffs’ claims.  Read more »

On December 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals published a unanimous opinion in City of Rockford v. 63rd District Court, No. 287501, affirming the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of Defendants.  The 63rd District Court is divided into two election divisions.  Currently, Judge Servaas presides over the first division in a facility in Rockford, and Chief Judge Smolenski presides over the second division in a facility in Grand Rapids Township.  Kent County, as the “funding unit” of the 63rd District Court, acquired property in Grand Rapids Township to consolidate both divisions of the court in a new facility.  On February 4, 2008, Chief Judge Smolenski issued a statement indicating her support for the proposed consolidation, and stated that, as chief judge, she had the ultimate authority to decide whether both divisions would be consolidated.  The Rockford City Council and Servaas objected to the proposed consolidation.  Plaintiff brought suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, on the ground that the proposed consolidation plan violated the statutory requirement that the district court “shall sit” in Rockford.  The location of district courts of the second class is governed by MCL § 600.8251(2), which provides in pertinent part: “[i]n districts of the second class, the court shall sit . . . at each city and incorporated village within the district having a population of 3,250 or more . . . .”  The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not err in determining that the 63rd District Court is not required to maintain a full-time judicial presence in Rockford.  To “sit” has been interpreted by the Michigan Supreme Court to generally mean “to hold court” or “do any act of a judicial nature.”  The Court of Appeals further determined that the trial court did not err in holding that the only judicial services the 63rd District Court must provide in Rockford are those it is required to provide under the District Court Act.  The Court of Appeals also determined that the trial court did not err in concluding that, as chief judge, Smolenski had the authority to determine that Servaas would “sit” in Grand Rapids Township, despite his objection.

The Michigan Supreme Court Office of Public Information announced yesterday that the Michigan Supreme Court, Michigan Court of Appeals, and State Court Administrative Office will all be closed on Thursday, December 24th; Friday, December 25th; Thursday, December 31st; and Friday, January 1st.

On December 15, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its decision in Reed v. Shurlow, No. 288201, and Seaman v. Shurlow, No. 288202.  The Court upheld the trial court’s denial of sanctions for filing frivolous claims, reiterating the high bar for such sanctions and the focus on the plaintiff’s reasonable beliefs at the time the complaint was filed.  The Court’s opinion may be found here.

Read more »

This morning, The Detroit News published a commentary from Dan Pero, former chief of staff to Governor John Engler, titled “Beware power grab for Michigan court.”  The commentary begins, “There’s a discredited practice in politics: If you can’t win the game, change the rules. The majority of justices on the Michigan Supreme Court is attempting to do just that by making it far easier to dismiss justices elected by Michigan voters from controversial cases and blatantly shift the balance of power on the court.”  You can read the full commentary here.

In an editorial posted today, the Detroit News expressed its criticism of the Michigan Supreme Court’s new recusal rules.  While lauding many of the changes, the editorial expresses concern over the vague “appearance of impropriety” standard for recusal as well as the rule allowing a Justice to be removed by his or her colleagues in “secret deliberations” rather than a public hearing.

The Detroit Free Press reports that by a 4-3 vote, the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday appointed Judge William Murphy as the new Chief Judge for the Michigan Court of Appeals.  The Court also selected chief judges for Michigan’s trial courts; the results can be found here, here, and here.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the Michigan Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote yesterday adopted formal rules regarding when Justices must recuse themselves based on a conflict of interest.  Breaking with past tradition, the new rules will allow Justices to review another Justice’s decision regarding recusal.  The new rules do not require litigants in the Supreme Court to list their campaign contributions to specific Justices, the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Caperton v. Massey.  When released, we will post the Court’s order detailing the rules in their entirety.

On Friday, September 25, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in People v. Aceval.  Leave was denied by an equally divided Court with Justices Cavanagh and Markman and Chief Justice Kelly dissenting.  Justice Corrigan recused herself because she has agreed to be a character witness for retired Wayne County Circuit Judge Mary Waterstone. 

Aceval, an Inkster bar owner, was convicted of possession of cocaine.  During his first trial, Judge Waterstone, the former head of the Wayne County prosecutor’s drug unit, and two police officers allegedly permitted perjured testimony to conceal the identity of a confidential informant.  The first trial ended in a mistrial, and Aceval was retried.  During the second trial, Aceval’s counsel uncovered the perjury and the Judge Waterstone recused herself.  The replacement judge disqualified one of Aceval’s attorneys who had appeared for the limited purpose of filing certain pretrial motions.  Aceval eventually entered a guilty plea.

On appeal, Aceval contended that he was denied his right to counsel of his choice and that the use of perjured testimony at his first trial deprived him of due process to the extent that his retrial should have been barred.  The Court of Appeals found the conduct at the first trial to be “disgraceful” and “reprehensible,” but did not conclude that Aceval had been denied the counsel of his choice or that retrial was barred.  The Court of Appeals’ decision is here.

Judge Waterstone, the prosecutor, and the two officers have been charged with felonies for permitting the perjured testimony. The Detroit News is reporting that Justice Corrigan has agreed to be a character witness for Judge Waterstone. 

On the last day of the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2008-2009 term, the Court rejected the Judicial Tenure Commission’s (“JTC”) recommendation to remove Judge Steven Servaas from office as district judge.  The Judicial Tenure Commission concluded that Servaas had vacated his office by moving out of the division of the district which he served, that Servaas had engaged in judicial misconduct by making a comment and two drawings of a sexual nature, and that Servaas had lied under oath during the Judicial Tenure Commission’s proceedings.  A four-justice majority of the Court concluded that removal from office was not warranted.  The justices filed five separate concurring and dissenting opinions.  The In re Servaas decision including all concurrences and dissents is here. Read more »

On July 21, 2009, in addition to reversing its previous, December 2008 opinion in U.S. Fidelity Ins. & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, the Michigan Supreme Court also issued an order denying the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n (“MCCA”) motion for recusal of Justice Hathaway.  The order and related opinions can be found here.  The MCCA alleged that Justice Hathaway’s spouse, as a practicing plaintiff’s attorney in No-Fault cases, has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case.  In denying the motion, Justice Hathaway concludes that simply because her husband practices in a particular area of law does not mean that he has a financial interest in the case.  She specifically states, “I have no personal bias or prejudice for or against any party in this matter.  Moreover, neither I nor any member of my immediate family has any real or arguable financial interest in this case.” Read more »

On March 18, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order advising the public that the Court is considering amending the Michigan Court Rules to address the disqualification of Supreme Court justices.  The order presents three proposed rules for public consideration.  Currently, the Michigan Court Rules do not explicitly address the disqualification of Supreme Court Justices.  MCR 2.003 addresses the disqualification of judges, but there is no clear consensus that MCR 2.003 applies to the justices of the Supreme Court. Justices Weaver, Corrigan, and Young filed statements concurring with the Court’s order, all urging the public to consider the issue.  The order may be found here.

Read more »