Elba Township v. Gratiot County Drain Commissioner
493 Mich. 265
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Elba Township sued the Gratiot County Drain Commissioner seeking to enjoin consolidation of No. 181-0 drain districts and related maintenance/improvement.
- The Kellogg petition for consolidation involved only five signatures, raising the signature-quantity dispute.
- The Commissioner appointed a Board of Determination that held a hearing on May 4, 2010 to assess necessity and conduciveness.
- Notice on the petition and hearing stated the project affected multiple townships and included potential beneficiaries.
- Court proceedings: trial court granted summary disposition for Commissioner; Court of Appeals affirmed equitable jurisdiction but reversed on merits.
- Supreme Court granted leave and held that equitable jurisdiction was improper for the signature issue but proper for notice, ultimately reinstating the trial court’s summary disposition for Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signature requirement for consolidation petition | Elba/Osborn claim 50 signatures required | Drain Code requires 50% or 50 signatures for consolidation | Equitable jurisdiction improper; certiorari governs; merits not reached. |
| Notice for board of determination hearing | Notice defective because some affected lands lay outside listed townships | Due process not violated; notice adequate for assessment stage | Due process did not require notice for the board of determination hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarence Twp v Dickinson, 151 Mich 270; 115 NW 57 (1908) (petition-signature requirements purely statutory; no constitutional violation)
- Strack v Miller, 134 Mich 311; 96 NW 452 (1903) (equitable relief limited; certiorari preferred for procedural defects)
- Pere Marquette R Co v Auditor General, 226 Mich 491; 198 NW 199 (1924) (equitable relief available for constitutional infirmities)
- Roberts v Smith, 115 Mich 5; 72 NW 1091 (1897) (due process concerns tied to notice of assessments, not initial project necessity)
- Hinkley v Bishop, 152 Mich 256; 259-260; 114 NW 676 (1908) (notice relates to assessments, not initial project necessity; due process concerns limited)
- Round, (not included due to citation uncertainty) () (historical context for certiorari vs equity)