One Court of Justice

On January 28, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied three applications for leave to appeal, administratively closed one case and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in another case.

In People v Washington, the Michigan Supreme Court denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal. Justice Marilyn Kelly dissented, stating that she would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because she did not believe that the police made a valid Terry Stop and as a result the police’s search was illegal, and the trial court was correct to dismiss the case.

After considering the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, the Court vacated its June 11, 2010 order in People v Hailey and denied the application for leave to appeal.

The Court administratively closed Thorne v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., without prejudice and without a decision on the merits, due to the filing of a petition of bankruptcy in In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., et al,  in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York.

Finally in People v Jones,  the Court in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the April 3, 2008 order of the Wayne Circuit Court granting the defendant credit for time served.

In People v. Osby the Court of Appeals held that under MCL 750.116 the term depository includes motor vehicles. MCL 750.116 prohibits the possession of burglar’s tools, which it defines as tools used to force or break open “any building, room, vault, safe or other depository.” Defendant was convicted under the statute for carrying a “window punch,” which the police believed was used to break car windows. On appeal defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the burglar’s tools statute does not include a reference to motor vehicles. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction finding that the term depository is a catch all phrase that includes motor vehicles. The Court noted that Black’s Law Dictionary 9^th ed. defines depository as “a place where one leaves money or valuables for safekeeping” and went on to reason that the average person locks a vehicle and assumes that the contents will be relatively safe.

In Estate of Stanley Luckow v Luckow, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion for reconsideration seeking to modify a spousal support order recommended before the supporting spouse died, but not adopted until afterward.   The Court of Appeals found that the original judge’s denial of the wife’s motion to increase spousal support after her ex-husband’s death was not palpable error and concluded that there was no basis for the successor judge to reconsider the motion. Read more »

The State Bar of Michigan created the Judicial Crossroads Task Force to  address Michigan’s increasing fiscal limitations and the effect on the court system.  The task force has issued a report making several recommendations about how to cut costs and update and streamline the court system.

On January 26, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied 3 applications for leave to appeal.

On January 25, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its opinion in People v. Fonville, No. 294554.  The court held that the defendant had received ineffective assistance of counsel where the defendant’s attorney failed to advise him that his guilty plea would require him to register as a sex offender.  Read more »

Under the Construction Lien Act, a contractor must record a construction lien within 90 days after the subcontractor last furnishes labor or material for an improvement.  In Stock Building Supply, L.L.C. v. Parsley Homes of Mazuchet Harbor, L.L.C., No. 294098, the Court of Appeals held that performing “warranty work” to correct deficiencies in work that a subcontractor had already performed, or to correct defects in fixtures installed, does not constitute an “improvement” under the Construction Lien Act.  The Court of Appeals determined that the distinguishing factor is whether the work conferred any value beyond the value furnished by the completion of the original work.  Therefore, work performed to repair a leak in a whirlpool tub and to fix a toilet was warranty work, because it was necessary to provide what was originally contracted for – i.e., fully functioning plumbing fixtures.

On Tuesday, January 25, 2010, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in People v Dilworth, No. 294785.  In Dilworth, the Court of Appeals held that when a trial court orders a defendant pay “costs of prosecution” the record must reflect that those costs are related to the actual expenses incurred in prosecuting the case.

After the defendant’s conviction, the trial court ordered him to pay $1,235 for the prosecution of the case, in addition to the assessed costs and fees. Defendant appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded so that the trial court could make a record of what the costs are, determine whether they are permissible, and, if appropriate, impose or deny them. Although the Court of Appeals opined that the prosecutor’s costs are likely allowable, it stated that it had no way of knowing “the extent to which those costs were based on appropriate charges, such as expert witness fees, People v. Brown, 279 Mich. App. 116, 139; 755 NW2d 664 (2008) or impermissible charges, such as the prosecutor’s wages.” It noted that under the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Teasdale, 335 Mich. 1, 5; 55 N.W.2d 149 (1952), the cost of prosecution may not include “expenditures in connection with the maintenance and functioning of governmental agencies that must be borne by the public irrespective of specific violations of the law.”

On January 20, 2011, the Court of Appeals published an opinion in CG Automation & Fixture, Inc v Autoform et al., Inc, No. 286361.  There, the Court granted leave to consider a question of first impression arising under the Michigan Molder’s Lien Act, MCL 445.611 et seq., and it held that an enforceable lien under the Act demands the presence of permanently affixed identifying details on the particular mold, die or tool. Read more »

In the case of In re Estate of David Gary Lundy, the Court of Appeals held that a security interest perfected under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.9101 et seq., has priority over all other estate claims made under the Estate and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC). Read more »