180 Pierce LLC v. Liquor Control Commission
334425
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- Pierce Martin owned two commercial condominium units and leased Unit 5 to Townhouse Kitchen and Bar; Townhouse applied for Class C and SDM liquor licenses in Dec 2010, with a floor plan showing expansion into adjacent common-element space.
- The Michigan Liquor Control Commission approved the licenses conditionally in April 2011 and issued them after conditions were met; Townhouse opened in Aug 2011.
- The Commission’s enforcement division investigated two complaints: (1) alleged unauthorized expansion of licensed premises (investigator closed this pending resolution in Oakland County litigation); (2) alleged false statements in the license application inducing the Commission to act (investigator prepared a violation report and submitted it to the Attorney General, which concluded there was insufficient evidence and the case was closed).
- Plaintiffs (180 Pierce LLC and Polo I LLC), co-owners/association members, sued for a writ of mandamus in Ingham Circuit Court (June 2015) seeking to compel the Commission to initiate revocation proceedings, alleging the Commission abused discretion by issuing/renewing licenses despite false statements and lack of a valid, association-approved lease and alleged violations of the condominium master deed.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the Commission and intervening defendants (Pierce Martin and Townhouse), finding the Commission exercised discretion reasonably and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus could compel the Commission to initiate revocation proceedings | Plaintiffs: Commission had a nondiscretionary duty to enforce the Liquor Control Code and must initiate revocation when licenses were obtained by false statements and without a valid lease | Commission: Investigated complaints, submitted violation report to AG, and had discretion to decline revocation; decision was not arbitrary | Held: Mandamus denied — Commission’s action was discretionary and reasonably exercised; no clear legal duty to initiate revocation |
| Whether Commission failed to exercise discretion or acted arbitrarily/capriciously | Plaintiffs: Commission abandoned duty by closing investigations and not pursuing revocation despite evidence | Commission: Investigations were conducted, AG review concluded insufficient evidence; Oakland County rulings affirmed Townhouse’s right to use common elements | Held: No arbitrary/capricious conduct; closing the matter and following AG determination was within discretion |
| Whether condominium documents required Commission to refuse/deny licenses or revoke them | Plaintiffs: Master deed and amendment prohibited commercial sale/consumption on common elements and association approval was required for lease | Defendants: Oakland County judgment found Pierce Martin had approval; Commission required a fully executed lease (not association-approved lease); statutory provision preserved pre-amendment leases | Held: Oakland County rulings removed factual predicate; condominium remedies did not obligate Commission to revoke |
| Whether plaintiffs met burden for extraordinary remedy of mandamus | Plaintiffs: Sought writ because no other adequate remedy existed | Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to show a clear legal right or a ministerial duty; Commission has other enforcement options | Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove elements for mandamus (no clear duty; discretion present) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 293 Mich. App. 506 (2011) (standard for reviewing trial court mandamus rulings and discretionary abuse)
- Barrow v. Detroit Election Comm., 301 Mich. App. 404 (2013) (elements and burden for mandamus relief)
- Teasel v. Dep’t of Mental Health, 419 Mich. 390 (1984) (mandamus may compel exercise of discretion but not its specific outcome)
- Bay City v. Bay County Treasurer, 292 Mich. App. 156 (2011) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re MCI Telecom Complaint, 460 Mich. 396 (1999) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Bishoff v. Wayne County, 320 Mich. 376 (1948) (mandamus requires absence of arbitrary or capricious conduct to compel action)