Davis v. Chatman
292 Mich. App. 603
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Highland Park School District had two board seats up for election in 2010; Davis finished third behind Chatman and Humphrey.
- Davis sought quo warranto after contesting Chatman’s residency; court granted leave to file and issued a writ of quo warranto.
- Evidentiary hearing examined whether Chatman resided at 56 Louise in Highland Park 30 days before February 9, 2010 filing deadline; evidence showed lack of utilities and occupancy.
- The trial court concluded Chatman did not reside at 56 Louise during the relevant period and granted the writ nullifying Chatman’s election and appointing Davis as winner.
- The court later stayed the portion of judgment recognizing Davis as election winner; Davis v Chatman appeal ensued.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the orders granting leave, granting writ, and denying a jury trial request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file quo warranto was properly granted | Davis contends appropriate application made and merit shown | Chatman argues improper or unnecessary proceeding | Yes; leave within principled range of outcomes |
| Whether viewing the premises without notice requires reversal | Davis asserts no prejudice from view | Chatman claims notice required and bias risk | No; viewing did not affect outcome and supports decision |
| Whether a jury trial was waived by conduct | Davis argues right to jury trial preserved | Chatman argues conduct implied waiver | Waiver implied by conduct; bench trial permissible |
| Whether the writ properly declared the plaintiff the election winner | Davis entitled to office after Chatman failed residency requirement | Chatman contends seat vacancy rules apply | Yes; under MCL 600.4505, plaintiff entitled to office; Chatman’s election void |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. Detroit Mayor, 290 Mich App 530 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for leave to file quo warranto; statutory/Rule basis remains jurisdictional)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich 372 (2006) (abuse of discretion; principled outcomes standard)
- Grand Rapids v. Harper, 32 Mich App 324 (1971) (leave to file quo warranto — factors for merit and Attorney General application)
- Ferzacca v. Freeman, 240 Mich 682 (1927) (notice not required for leave to file quo warranto; initial step in proceeding)
- In re Servaas, 484 Mich 634 (2009) (quo warranto authority regardless of current incumbency status)