in Re Bay County Clerk
331455
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 3, 2016Background
- Plaintiff, the Bay County Clerk, sued the Bay County Executive and Board of Commissioners under amended provisions of the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (UBAA), MCL 141.421 et seq., alleging inadequate funding and related relief.
- Plaintiff asserted (Count I) the clerk’s office lacked a "serviceable level" of funding necessary to perform statutorily mandated duties (e.g., election audits, microfilming, timely financial reports and invoice processing).
- (Count II) Plaintiff sought declaratory relief that fees from concealed pistol licensing (MCL 28.425x) be controlled and expended by the clerk.
- (Count III) Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to allocate sufficient resources; (Count IV) sought injunctive relief to prevent impairment of the clerk’s office.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10); plaintiff moved for partial summary disposition. Court of Appeals resolved threshold issues and referred further factfinding to a retired judge under MCL 141.438(10).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk shows lack of a serviceable level of funding under UBAA | Funding cuts have prevented completion of required tasks (audits, microfilming, reports), showing funding below serviceable level | Essential functions are still being met; no legal insufficiency | Genuine factual dispute exists; defendants’ summary disposition denied as to Count I |
| Whether clerk controls expenditure of concealed pistol licensing fees | Fees should be under clerk's control and expended at clerk's direction | Statute establishes a county fund subject to UBAA appropriation and county treasurer oversight | Count II may proceed as budget-line issue; court lacks jurisdiction to grant broader control claim; summary disposition denied but limited |
| Whether mandamus is available to compel funding allocations | Mandamus appropriate to compel defendants to provide sufficient funding | Funding allocations are discretionary and other adequate remedies exist | Mandamus denied; plaintiff has adequate remedy (Count I) and duties involve discretion |
| Whether injunctive relief to prevent impairment of clerk’s office is warranted | Immediate irreparable harm and likelihood of success justify injunction | No irreparable harm or likelihood of success shown; budget dispute ongoing | Injunctive relief denied; Count IV dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648 (construing MCR 2.116(C)(8) pleading standard)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standards for MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary disposition)
- Wayne County Prosecutor v. Wayne County Commissioners, 93 Mich. App. 114 (definition of "serviceable level" of funding)
- Casco Township v. Secretary of State, 472 Mich. 566 (mandamus standards)
- Citizens for Protection of Marriage v. Board of State Canvassers, 263 Mich. App. 487 (plaintiff’s burden for mandamus)
- Thermatool Corp. v. Borzym, 227 Mich. App. 366 (factors for injunctive relief)