Hackel v. Macomb County Commission
298 Mich. App. 311
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This appeal concerns whether the Macomb County Commission or the County Executive has the authority to approve county contracts under the Macomb County Charter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commission has contract-approval authority under the charter | Executive argued Commission lacked authority or delegation. | Commission has explicit authority under §4.4(d) to approve contracts. | Commission has contract-approval authority under §4.4(d) |
| Whether Executive has independent contract-approval authority or delegation suffices | Executive can approve contracts if delegated; otherwise he lacks authority. | Delegation and charter provisions permit Executive to negotiate/submit; does not require Executive to approve all contracts. | Executive lacks independent authority; delegation and charter provisions give the Commission control over approvals |
| Whether UBAA or general-law limits override charter allocation of power | UBAAs control unless charter provides otherwise; Executive argues limitations. | Charter §4.4(d) provides “otherwise” from UBAA; specific provision controls | Charter provision controls; UBAA does not override §4.4(d) |
| Whether attorney-fee award was proper | Executive seeks fees under inherent-powers litigation | Inherent-power fees not applicable; no budget shortfall jeopardy; funds allocated | Reversed; no basis to award attorney fees to Executive |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne Co v Wayne Co Retirement Comm, 267 Mich App 230 (2005) (de novo review of summary disposition; separation of powers analysis in local context)
- Begin v Mich Bell Tel Co, 284 Mich App 581 (2009) (pleadings-based standard for C8; favorable view of pleadings)
- In re Smith Estate, 226 Mich App 285 (1997) (C9 standard; acceptance of well-pleaded allegations)
- Detroit City Council v Detroit Mayor, 283 Mich App 442 (2009) (statutory interpretation; separation of powers)
- Oakland Co Comm'r v Oakland Co Executive, 98 Mich App 639 (1980) (delegation of power in charter counties; voters’ final approval)
- Lapeer Co Abstract, 264 Mich App 167 (2004) (county contract authority; interpretation of contracts power)
- Alco Universal Inc v City of Flint, 386 Mich 359 (1971) (definition of 'approve' and implied powers)
- 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131 (2006) (inherent judicial power to secure funding; attorney fees)
- O’Hara v Wayne Co Clerk, 238 Mich App 611 (1999) (local-law restrictions; charter counties subject to general law)
- Harbor Tel 2103, LLC v Oakland Co Bd of Comm’rs, 253 Mich App 40 (2002) (separation of powers in local government)
- Hopkins v Parole Bd, 237 Mich App 629 (1999) (separation of powers; balance between branches)
- STC, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 528 (2003) (separation of powers; definitions of regulatory authority)
- Danse Corp v City of Madison Hts, 466 Mich 175 (2002) (AG opinions not binding; statutory interpretation)
- Johnson v Pastoriza, 491 Mich 417 (2012) (dictionary definition for ordinary meaning of terms)