Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board v. Blackwell
299 Mich. App. 727
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Arthur Blackwell II served as Highland Park's emergency financial manager (EFM) from April 2005 to April 2009; the jury found he made unauthorized city payments totaling $264,000; the amended judgment awarded $332,837.11 including fees and costs; the Board moved for summary disposition on defendant's counterclaims; Board sought to amend the complaint to add the Attorney General; issues arose about the Governor's authority to modify contracts and the Board's statutory power to appoint/compensate EFM; GTLA immunity was invoked to bar fraud claims; the relation-back doctrine was used to relate the AG's addition to the original complaint; and the court denied JNOV/remittitur while affirming the verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary disposition against defendant on counterclaims was proper | Board was immune; contract existed; no basis for unjust enrichment or fraud | Governor modified contract; authority lay with Governor; absence of Board authority | Yes, proper summary disposition for Board on counterclaims |
| Whether adding the Attorney General to the complaint related back and whether prejudice occurred | AG's claims arose from same conduct; relation-back applicable | Amendment prejudicial; not preserved | Yes, relation-back applicable; no prejudice to defendant |
| Whether the jury's verdicts are inconsistent and support denial of JNOV | Verdicts harmonizable; breach/fiduciary duties and conversion distinct | Contract no explicit prohibition equals inconsistency | No, verdicts are reconcilable and not inconsistent |
| Whether remittitur/limitations issues were properly handled | Relation-back defeats limitations defense; amendment timely | Limitations defense preserved if applicable | No abuse of discretion; relation-back applied; limitations defense not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (2008) (immunity analysis for governmental defendants)
- Snead v John Carlo, Inc., 294 Mich App 343 (2011) (governmental immunity framework)
- Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663 (2006) (summary disposition tests of legal sufficiency)
- Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358 (1996) (standard for judgment as a matter of law)
- Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463 (2003) (unjust enrichment requires lack of express contract)
- Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186 (2002) (governmental immunity requires pleading avoidance)
- Hayes-Albion Corp v Whiting Corp, 184 Mich App 410 (1990) (exception to general rule on relation-back for new parties)
- Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102 (2007) (relation-back considerations for amendments)