Charter Township of Royal Oak v. Janice Brinkley
331317
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Janice Brinkley, former Royal Oak Township Clerk, sought sanctions (costs and fees) under MCR 2.114(D) and (E) after summary disposition in her favor; the trial court denied her motion.
- This Court previously affirmed that the complaint was not frivolous but remanded for the trial court to determine whether specific documents were signed in bad faith (Brinkley I).
- Brinkley challenged multiple plaintiff filings and affidavits (notably Supervisor Donna Squalls’s affidavit), alleging statements about EVIP funding, shredding records, Fund Balance software access, directions to the deputy clerk, and need for an interim trustee were false or not warranted by law.
- Brinkley also attacked (1) the show-cause motion re: two special meetings (one given 22 hours’ notice; one requested by text) and (2) plaintiff’s response to her summary-disposition motion regarding compliance with a township mail-protocol resolution.
- The trial court found no clear evidence that plaintiff knowingly signed filings that were not grounded in fact or law; on remand the trial court again denied sanctions, and this appeal challenges those factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filings violated MCR 2.114 by making false statements about EVIP funding | Squalls’s affidavit attributed loss of $50,000 EVIP funds to missing reports | Brinkley admitted missing attachments but says plaintiff misidentified which reports; thus statements were false | No clear error; Brinkley’s admission undermines claim that statements were knowingly false |
| Whether affidavit falsely alleged Brinkley shredded public records without Board knowledge | Squalls stated Brinkley shredded records without Board knowledge | Brinkley says Board passed a resolution allowing shredding and Squalls lacked knowledge of legal retention requirements | No clear error; record shows Brinkley shredded documents and Squalls did not know their substance—not enough to show bad faith |
| Whether affidavit misrepresented denial of "read/write" access to Fund Balance software | Squalls said Brinkley denied access and Board passed resolution addressing access | Brinkley contends affidavit implied noncompliance with resolution | No clear error; affidavit did not assert violation of resolution and evidence shows access was blocked prior to resolution |
| Whether affidavit falsely stated deputy clerk was directed not to act | Squalls averred deputy was told not to act; deputy submitted affidavit denying it | Brinkley contends Squalls’ statement was false and made in bad faith | No clear error; testimony indicates deputy told Squalls Brinkley told her not to do something though specifics were vague—conflict not proof of bad faith |
| Whether affidavit and complaint warranted appointment of interim trustee | Plaintiff said township could not function without interim trustee due to Brinkley’s failures | Brinkley argues township and deputy could function; no evidence of failure to perform duties | No clear error; record of unsigned resolutions, missing EVIP docs, and possible deputy noncompliance supported request |
| Whether show-cause motion re: special meetings was frivolous | Plaintiff argued meetings were improperly ignored; one request was 22 hours, the other by text | Brinkley argued motions were not warranted by MCL 42.7 (24-hour notice; "in writing") | Denied as bad-faith claim; court found arguable grounds: 22 hours may fit open meetings public-notice framework and text could arguably satisfy "in writing" |
| Whether plaintiff’s response on mail-protocol was bad faith given counsel opinion | Plaintiff alleged Brinkley violated a board resolution limiting opening of mail | Brinkley relied on general-counsel opinion and MCL 41.65/McKim to claim right to open all mail | No clear error; resolution was passed and Brinkley defied it; statutory law is not clearly to the contrary, so plaintiff’s position was arguable |
| Whether plaintiff should have dismissed earlier (sanctions for failure to dismiss) | Not argued below; raised first on appeal | Brinkley contends plaintiff knew it had no case and should've dismissed | Unpreserved and forfeited; appellate court declines to address and finds claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaeb v. Kaeb, 309 Mich App 556 (standard for sanctions factual findings review)
- Kitchen v. Kitchen, 465 Mich 654 (definition of clear error)
- LaRose Market, Inc. v. Sylvan Ctr., Inc., 209 Mich App 201 (affirmative duty of reasonable inquiry under MCR 2.114)
- Guerrero v. Smith, 280 Mich App 647 (filing not well grounded supports MCR 2.114 sanctions)
- Sprenger v. Bickle, 307 Mich App 411 (merits-question losing does not alone show lack of legal support for filing)
- McKim v. Green Oak Twp. Bd., 158 Mich App 200 (discussion of clerk custody over township papers/mail)
- Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1 (failure to develop appellate argument = abandonment)