One Court of Justice

On a busy Friday before the holiday weekend, in addition to other granted applications discussed further in separate posts, the Michigan Supreme Court granted an application and asked for further briefing in a township taxation issue. 

In Cherryland Electric Cooperative v East Bay Township and Garfield Township, the parties were asked to brief: (1) whether a township assessor has an independent obligation to determine the true cash value of all property within the jurisdiction of a township, or whether, in determining true cash value, a township assessor is obligated to follow the personal tax reporting form approved by the State Tax Commission; and (2) whether these cases involve a mutual mistake of fact within the meaning of MCL 211.53a.

In addition, our high court held one criminal appeal in abeyance pending determination of a similar case.

The Supreme Court granted the application of an interest group challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance permitting Detroit Edison to issue a prospective rebate to its customers to refund a prior unapproved rate increase.  Our July 2012 post on the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the prospective rebate, and the dissent arguing that it was not permitted because it was contrary to the plain language of the statute at issue, can be found here.

Detroit Edison had implemented a rate hike to customers prior to receipt of Michigan Public Service Commission approval.  When only part of the rate increase was approved, Detroit Edison wanted to refund the overcharge by crediting a future bill.  The Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE) argued that such a refund was impermissible under the applicable statute and failed to compensate past customers who paid the unapproved additional charges.

In State of Michigan v. Blackwell, the Court of Appeals considered whether the governor has the power to contract with an emergency financial manager regarding his salary.  The Court held that only the local emergency financial assistance loan board had the power to compensate the manager under the statutory scheme; the governor had no authority to do so.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the plaintiffs on the manager’s breach-of-contract counterclaim.  The Court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiffs on the defendant-manager’s fraud and unjust-enrichment counterclaims, its grant of the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, and its denial for the defendant-manger’s motions for JNOV and remittitur.  Read more »

Because Michigan’s septage waste disposal statute explicitly states it does not preempt local ordinances imposing stricter requirements, the Court of Appeals in Gmoser’s Septic Service LLC v Michigan Septic Tank Association upheld East Bay Township’s mandate that all township septic waste be disposed of in the Grand Traverse facility.

Read more »

In a technically-unanimous opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded a Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) case for reinstatement of a trial verdict for plaintiff.  It was technically unanimous since Justice Zahra did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals’ panel that reversed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition to defendants, and Justice McCormack did not participate, presumably since argument occurred before her tenure began.

Read more »

In Hanlin v. Saugatuck Township, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a quo warranto writ based on alleged irregularities in a Saugatuck Township special election that narrowly approved a millage.  The court also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a writ of mandamus regarding the certification of the election.  Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants. Read more »

On December 14, the Michigan Supreme Court peremptorily reversed the Court of Appeals, and relied on the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, in Smith v. Suburban Mobile Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART).  Justice Kelly dissented from that decision, and Justice Hathaway did not participate due to a conflict.

Judge Meter wrote the Court of Appeals’ dissent, which held that the circuit court decision dismissing plaintiff’s case should have been upheld.  Judge Meter agreed that, per MCL 124.419, plaintiff failed to serve written notice of his claim on SMART within 60 days of the accident that injured him.  In that case, plaintiff called to report the accident to SMART’s call center, submitted to an interview by SMART’s insurance adjuster, and emailed with that adjuster.  The adjuster also sent an email about the accident to SMART.  The Court of Appeals majority felt this was at least substantial compliance with the requirement that plaintiff provide written notice, insofar as the statute does not say who (plaintiff or SMART’s adjuster) must submit the notice.  However, the dissent – adopted by the Supreme Court – held that the adjuster’s email was too vague to be the written notice required by the statute, and that no notice was given regarding the claimed injuries or other elements required to be described.

The Supreme Court also granted oral argument in a criminal case application, and denied a third application.  In People v. Harris, the Supreme Court asked to hear argument as it considers whether to grant the application about whether the defendant was prejudiced by admission of testimony regarding complainant’s diagnosis as a victim of child sexual abuse, and whether he is entitled to a new trial.

The Harris case has already been up to the Supreme Court once, where the high court peremptorily reversed the Court of Appeals and held that admission of the diagnosis testimony was error.  The Supreme Court remanded for determination of the prejudice issue, and the Court of Appeals held that the error did not prejudice Mr. Harris such that he failed to receive a fair trial.

On remand, the Court of Appeals in Department of Environmental Quality v Township of Worth considered whether remedial measures, fines, and attorney fees imposed against Worth Township for allowing private septic systems to leak into Lake Huron were authorized under Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (“NREPA”) or violated the Headlee Amendment to the Michigan Constitution.  The Court of Appeals held that NREPA did authorize the ordered remedies and that the remedial measures did not violate the Headlee Amendment.

Read more »

As the adage goes, one person’s trash is another’s treasure. In Bonner v. City of Brighton, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Brighton’s ordinance, BCO § 18-59, which requires demolition of an unsafe building if the cost to make it safe exceeds the building’s value, violates the procedural due-process rights of the building’s owners. The plaintiffs, who own two buildings considered unsafe after remaining unoccupied for roughly thirty years, brought a facial challenge to the ordinance. The court decided that owners should have an opportunity to repair such buildings—even if the municipality considers the cost of such repairs unreasonable.

Read more »

In Hackel v Macomb County Commission, the plaintiff, an elected county executive, claimed that he had final authority to approve County contracts.  The Court of Appeals granted summary disposition for the Commission, finding that it had statutory authority to approve or disapprove such contracts while the plaintiff had no such authority absent delegation by the Commission. Read more »