Harlan Vermilya v. Delta College Board of Trustees
331958
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (including Kim A. Higgs) sued Delta College and various officials alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), principally for failing to post the regular-meeting schedule for 2009 within 10 days of the first meeting.
- Some related OMA allegations raised by plaintiffs had been resolved in other litigation; this suit focused on the scheduling-post violation (which defendants did not contest) and sought declaratory relief.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted the motion and denied declaratory relief to plaintiffs.
- Higgs appealed the denial of declaratory relief, arguing entitlement under MCR 2.605(A)(1) and under the remedies provided by the OMA.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the summary-disposition and statutory interpretation issues, and for abuse of discretion the availability of injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an actual controversy existed under MCR 2.605(A)(1) to permit declaratory relief | Higgs: Declaratory judgment was necessary to guide future conduct and preserve rights regarding the alleged OMA violation | Defendants: No live controversy needing declaratory relief because most issues were resolved or pending elsewhere and defendants did not dispute the single posting allegation | Court: No; no actual controversy requiring declaratory relief under MCR 2.605(A)(1) |
| Whether the OMA authorizes declaratory relief as an independent remedy | Higgs: The OMA supports a declaratory judgment for violations | Defendants: OMA’s remedies are limited to invalidation, injunctive relief, or damages under §13; no legislative intent to create declaratory-relief cause of action | Court: No; under Speicher and subsequent authority, the OMA does not create a freestanding declaratory-relief remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens for a Better Algonac Comm Sch v. Algonac Comm Sch, 317 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (OMA does not create a separate cause of action for declaratory relief)
- Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 497 Mich. 125 (Mich. 2014) (explaining OMA’s three-tiered enforcement scheme and that remedies are confined to those provided by statute)
- UAW v. Central Mich. Univ. Trustees, 295 Mich. App. 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (an actual controversy under MCR 2.605 exists when declaratory relief is necessary to guide future conduct and preserve legal rights)