Robert J. Danhof

This case concerned whether Scio Township's vote to incorporate as a charter township under 1947 PA 359 automatically allowed the township board to levy up to five mills in property taxes pursuant to the charter township act, or whether the Headlee Amendment (Const 1963, art 9, § 31) required a separate voter approval to exceed the township's prior 1.16-mill limit. The township placed two ballot proposals before voters: one on incorporation and a second purporting to cap the new charter township's millage at 1.16 mills. The Court of Appeals held that approval of incorporation alone adopted the five-mill authority and rendered the second proposal invalid; because the invalid second proposal was so closely linked to the first that it likely misled voters about the tax consequences, the court voided the election results on both proposals. The majority reasoned that the natural meaning of the Headlee Amendment and the charter township act did not require an additional vote to authorize the statutory rate upon incorporation, and that the misleading ballot language necessitated setting aside the entire election rather than severing only the second proposal.

taxeselections

This case concerned a post-divorce dispute in which the mother sought a change in physical custody and child support for the parties' son after he moved in with her shortly before turning 18, while the father argued that support could not extend past the age of majority. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order requiring the father to pay $500 per month in support until the child graduated high school, as well as the change in custody. The majority held that the original divorce judgment was defective for failing to specify support obligations, that MCL 552.17a expressly permits support beyond age 18 in exceptional circumstances, and that the Age of Majority Act does not override that authority. The court further ruled that any procedural errors in the ex parte orders were harmless because the father received a full hearing afterward. A dissent would have followed prior precedent barring post-18 support.

family law

The case involved a former high school student suing her teacher for damages from a sexual relationship that occurred while she was a student between 1970 and 1974. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the limitations period is tolled under Michigan's insanity provision when the victim repressed memories of the abuse such that she could not comprehend her legal rights and there is corroborating evidence like the defendant's admission of the relationship. The court reasoned that this narrow rule balances concerns about stale claims with the need to allow valid actions to proceed when repression and corroboration are shown.

proceduretorts & liability

In Castillo v. Alexander, the plaintiff sued for serious impairment of body function from a 1983 multicar collision, the case was mediated under MCR 2.403 yielding a $2,000 award accepted by all parties, and the plaintiff soon sought to revoke her acceptance and proceed to trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion for entry of judgment based on the mediation award. The court reasoned that MCR 2.403 allows 28 days for parties to consider and notify the clerk of their initial acceptance or rejection, but does not permit rescission of an acceptance once filed, as principles of finality make the original election binding; any premature notice of unanimous acceptance by the clerk was harmless error that did not affect the parties' decisions.

proceduretorts & liability

In People v. Richard Johnson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of unarmed robbery and pleaded guilty to being a third-felony offender; the sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing his prior convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and assault with intent to commit murder to be used for impeachment if he testified. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the issue was preserved for review and that the trial court did not err under MRE 609 and the standards from People v. Allen. The majority reasoned that the probative value and prejudicial effect of the convictions were relatively balanced, the convictions were only somewhat similar to the charged offense, and the defendant's version of events was adequately presented through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses without his testimony. A dissent argued that the prejudicial effect was high given the assaultive nature of the priors and that the defendant's testimony was important to his fabrication defense, warranting reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether school maintenance and custodial employees were eligible for unemployment benefits during a one-week layoff from December 26, 1982, to January 1, 1983, a period when they had previously worked under their collective bargaining agreement even though students were on break. The Michigan Employment Security Commission Review Board denied benefits under MCL 421.27(i)(2)(b), finding the layoff occurred during an established and customary vacation or holiday period, but the circuit court reversed that determination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding that the statutory denial period applies only when employees lack a tradition or contractual obligation to work during the period in question, and that the employees' reasonable expectation of employment meant their layoff did not qualify as an established vacation or recess under the statute. The court distinguished prior precedent and construed the disqualification narrowly in favor of claimants who had worked the prior week and returned immediately after the layoff.

labor & employment