One Court of Justice

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 »

In Hardaway v County of Wayne, the plaintiff was a former Wayne County employee who claimed that she was entitled to certain post-employment benefits under a County Commission resolution.  The Court of Appeals applied the “last antecedent” rule of statutory construction to the regulation’s ambiguous language and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits.  Under a County Commission resolution, any employee who ended their employment with the County after January 1, 1994 and had served a total of at least eight years was entitled to post-employment insurance and health care benefits so long as the employee served in one of several enumerated positions.  The plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to the benefits as “an appointee other than a member of a board or commission who is confirmed by the County Commission.”    Under the “last antecedent” rule of statutory construction, a modifying clause applies solely to the immediately preceding clause.  Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the phrase “confirmed by the County Commission” applied only to the clause “member of a board or commission” and therefore the benefits were available to all appointees as long as they were not Commission-confirmed members of a board or commission. The plaintiff qualified for the benefits because she was an appointee but was not confirmed by the Commission.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff was entitled to summary disposition on this claim.  

The Court of Appeals, however, rejected the plaintiff’s remaining two claims.  Her breach of contract claim failed because statutes generally do not create contractual rights and therefore she could not show that there was any contract for the asserted benefits.  Her claim for promissory estoppel similarly failed because the mere fact that she continued the employee-employer relationship did not indicate sufficient reliance on the County’s alleged promise to pay benefits.

The Court of Appeals published its decisions in Fradco, Inc v. Department of Treasury, No. 306617 and SMK, LLC v. Department of Treasury, No. 306639, in which it answered the question of when the 35-day limitations period to file an appeal of a tax assessment to the Tax Tribunal begins, in the event the taxpayer has appointed a representative to receive notices from the Department of Treasury.  The Court determined that, according to MCL 205.8, when a taxpayer appoints an official representative to receive notice, the Department is required to provide all letters and notices regarding that dispute (including assessments) to that representative.  Additionally, MCL 205.22 requires that an appeal of an assessment be brought within 35 days of that assessment, and MCL 205.28(1) requires service of that assessment upon the taxpayer.  In looking at these various statutory requirements in a holistic and harmonious manner, the Court determined that the 35-day period would not commence until service of a copy of the assessment on both the taxpayer and its officially designated representative.  Thus, the Tax Tribunal had the authority to hear the appeals in these two cases that were filed more than 35 days after the assessments, but less than 35-days after the Department had notified the taxpayers’ official representatives.

In Cuddington v United Health Services, Inc, a former United Health Services (“UHS”) employee claimed that he had been fired for seeking medical treatment for a work-related injury.  The Court of Appeals held that employees have a right under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (“WDCA”) to seek medical treatment and need not file a workers’ compensation claim before bringing an action to enforce that right. Read more »

In Coventry Parkhomes Condominium Association v Federal National Mortgage Association, the Court of Appeals held that a mortgage on a condominium unit had priority over a subsequent condominium-association lien on that unit.  The assignment of the mortgage had no effect on the Condominium Act’s rule that the first mortgage of record has priority over a condominium-association lien. Read more »

In Capitol Area District Library v Michigan Open Carry, Inc, the Michigan Court of Appeals barred the Capitol Area District Library (the “CADL”) from enforcing its ban on openly carrying firearms into its libraries.  The Court held that MCL 123.1102 completely occupies the field of firearm regulation and, therefore, CADL’s policy was preempted. Read more »

After reviewing the Decision and Recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, to which the respondent consents, the settlement agreement with the respondent, the standards set forth in In re Brown regarding judicial misconduct, and the stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered that respondent be publicly censured in In re: Hon. Wade H. McCree.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in People v. Douglas.  The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed:  (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to inform him of a mandatory minimum sentence; (2) whether the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel may include re-offering a plea bargain; (3) under MRE 803A(3), what circumstances other than “fear” may excuse the failure of a child to report sexual abuse immediately; (4) whether a second corroborative statement that includes a different allegation of sexual abuse than was provided in a first statement is admissible; and (5) whether testimony that a child’s statement was “substantiated” constitutes improper vouching.  The Michigan Supreme Court also granted leave to appeal in People v. Williams, limited to the issue of whether OV 19 (interference with the administration of justice) was correctly scored.  The Court invited the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan to file briefs amicus curiae in both cases. Read more »

In Bronson Methodist Hospital v Michigan Assigned Claims Facility, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a no-fault insurer’s denial of PIP coverage to an injured registered owner of a vehicle who was also an excluded driver under the insurance policy.  The court applied the plain language of the insurance policy’s “named driver exclusion endorsement” and the no-fault statute, and found that the excluded driver’s “act of driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident rendered the vehicle uninsured.”  Relying on Iqbal v Bristol West Ins Group, Plaintiff argued that a vehicle owner is covered by a no-fault policy even when, as here, someone else insures the vehicle.  The Court of appeals distinguished Iqbal on grounds that the vehicle owner in that case was not an excluded driver.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the insurer and the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (MACF).

In People v Collins, the court of appeals held that Michigan courts have jurisdiction over “victimless” offenses committed by non-Indians on Indian lands located within the state.  In 2009, defendant Collins was captured on video surveillance selling Ritalin to another person on Indian lands at Island Resort and Casino.  Collins’ case was consolidated on appeal with another defendant, who was charged with selling marijuana at an Indian casino.  Defense counsel for both defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Michigan state courts lacked jurisdiction, and the circuit court agreed.  In reversing the circuit court’s decision, the court of appeals cited numerous United States Supreme Court and state and lower federal court decisions, finding that based on those precedents, Michigan courts had jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution of a non-Indian who committed a “victimless” crime on Indian lands. 

Read more »

In People v Kilpatrick, defendant Kwame Kilpatrick challenged the constitutionality of the Michigan statute that allowed the trial court to enter an order requiring that all proceeds from the sale of his book be placed in escrow to pay restitution to the city of Detroit.  Recognizing the general rule that questions of constitutionality should not be decided if there are alternative grounds for disposing of the case, the court of appeals found that it was unnecessary to address the defendant’s constitutional argument, as there were alternative bases for its decision to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Read more »