One Court of Justice

On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 17 applications for leave to appeal and ordered the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney to respond to the application for leave to appeal in People v. Mushatt, Case No. 137846.  Mushatt had been held in abeyance pending the Court’s decision in People v. Idziak.  Our post on Idziak is here.  The Court directed the prosecutor to respond to the application for leave to appeal within 28 days.  The prosecutor was asked to address: 1) whether, in light of the Court’s holding in Idziak, the defendant is entitled to jail credit under MCL §769.11b, and 2) whether because he is being held subject to an Alabama detainer, the defendant has received or will receive credit on his Alabama sentences for the time he spent in jail awaiting the disposition of this case.  The Court also remanded one criminal case for resentencing and peremptorily reversed and remanded three cases, which are discussed after the jump. Read more »

On October 27, 2009, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in the consolidated appeals of Delta Engineered Plastics, LLC v. Autolign Mfg. Group, Inc., No. 283786, Moon Roof Corp. of America v. Autolign Mfg. Group, Inc., No. 283787, and Proto-Plastics, Inc. v. Autolign Mfg. Group, Inc., No. 283788.  In its unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order granting declaratory relief in favor of the intervening defendant, a lender, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of the plaintiffs’ damages and appropriate remedies.  The Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiffs’ possessory liens under the Molder’s Lien Act, MCL § 445.611, et seq., on the defendant’s plastic injection molds used for producing automotive parts, have priority over the lender’s security interest in the molds.  The Court of Appeals declined to interpret MCL § 445.618d to ‘expressly’ provide that possessory molders’ liens are inferior to the interests of a secured creditor.  This case appears to be a likely candidate for Michigan Supreme Court review, in that it involves an issue of first impression regarding statutory language that will likely affect hundreds of automotive suppliers and financial institutions with competing security interests.

On October 27, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in In re Estate of Graves, No. 286674, authored by Judge Alton Davis, affirming summary disposition against an attorney for reimbursement to the estate, after his client, the court-appointed conservator, absconded with the funds.  The Court concluded that the probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over those claims because they concerned a conservatorship and sought return of funds to the estate.  It also held that the special fiduciary’s oral release of Attorney Ford did not bar the fiduciary’s subsequent  claims and that Ford violated state law by issuing the checks to the conservator in her personal name, rather than in her capacity as representative of the estate.
Read more »

On October 27, 2009, the Court of Appeals released its published opinion in In re Michael Allen Jones, Jr., No. 290194.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Appellant’s parental rights to her son.  The Court of Appeals, however, found that the trial court had committed clear error in finding the a statutory ground for termination existed through MCL § 712A.19b(3)(1) which related to involuntary termination of parental rights to another child.  The Court of Appeals pointed out that although the Appellant’s parental rights to her daughter were terminated, such termination was voluntary pursuant to the adoption code and does not meet the terms of the statutory ground cited by the trial court.  The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that this error was harmless.   In this case, the voluntary termination of rights to the daughter occurred after involuntary termination proceedings had commenced.  Pursuant to MCL § 712A.19b(3)(m), there is a statutory basis for termination of parental rights to the son because the voluntary termination of rights to the daughter followed the initiation of involuntary termination proceedings as to the daughter.  Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded there was a proper statutory ground to justify termination of parental rights to Appellant’s son.

On October 27, 2009, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its opinion in Prayer Temple of Love v. Wayne County Treasurer, No. 282995.  The case arises out of a foreclosure action initiated by the Wayne County Treasurer against the Prayer Temple based upon an unpaid assessment of property taxes.  Prayer Temple defended the foreclosure action arguing that its property was used for religious purposes and therefore was statutorily exempt from property taxes.  The Wayne County Treasurer disagreed, arguing that Prayer Temple’s outreach center was leased to a private party.  During the foreclosure proceedings the Wayne County Circuit Court agreed with Prayer Temple and ruled it was exempt from the assessed taxes.  The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to make that ruling.  The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court can hear purely legal challenges to an assessment (i.e., that a tax assessment was made under the authority of an unconstitutional statute), but that the relevant statutes invest the Michigan Tax Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to hear arguments that factual circumstances render an assessment improper.  Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Circuit Court did not have the jurisdiction to conclude that Prayer Temple was entitled to the protection of the religious-purposes exception to property taxes.

On October 26, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 123 applications for leave to appeal, denied 28 motions for reconsideration, and administratively closed one case.  The Court also held three applications in abeyance pending the outcome in McCormick v. Carrier, No. 136738 (our post on McCormick can be found here), and held one case in abeyance pending the outcome in Hoover v. Michigan Mutual Ins., Case No. 138018 (our post on Hoover can be found here).

On October 23, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied six applications for leave to appeal, and remanded five cases:  two to trial court, two to the Court of Appeals, and one as on leave granted.  The remanded cases are discussed after the jump. Read more »

In Zwiers v. Growney, No. 286828 (published Oct. 22, 2009), the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of a medical malpractice claim where the plaintiff filed her complaint one day before the expiration of the 182-day no-suit period of MCL § 600.2912b.  The Court held that MCL § 600.2301, which allows the courts to disregard or correct errors when they “affect the substantial rights of the parties,” empowered the Court to correct the one-day defect in plaintiff’s filing.  The Court’s opinion may be found here.

Read more »

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder in People v. Roper, No. 285137, in a unanimous opinion published on October 22, 2009.  The Court held that malice could be inferred from evidence that the defendant grabbed a knife, brandished it, swung it at the victim at close range, and then followed the victim outside and kicked him, stomped on him and taunted him.  The Court also affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about his character for aggression or violence, because the defendant placed the character trait at issue during his direct testimony when he testified that he was not the sort of person who would do “anything like that” – i.e., who would resort to violence without provocation.  The Court held that this testimony was sufficient under MRE 404(a) to open the door to cross-examination about his character for aggression.  Further, the Court held that Michigan law recognizes an exception to MRE 405(a) concerning permissible forms of character evidence when the defendant places his character at issue on direct and then denies specific instances of conduct on cross-examination.  In such a situation, the prosecution may elicit testimony through a rebuttal witness concerning specific instances of conduct.

When stopped in his truck at a red light, Mr. Fisher was struck from behind by a car, causing him to strike his mouth and nose on the steering wheel.  He lost one tooth as a result of the accident, and three years after the accident he had his remaining upper teeth removed and replaced with dentures, as the accident apparently accelerated existing problems he was already experiencing with his teeth.  He sued the driver and owners of the car and alleged that his injuries amounted to both a serious impairment of body function and a permanent serious disfigurement.  In Fisher v. Blankenship, No. 285852 (published Oct. 22, 2009), the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment to the defendants and allowed Mr. Fisher’s claim to go forward to trial.  The majority opinion is available here, and the dissent by Judge K.F. Kelly here.

Read more »