Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd Partnership v. Robert Naftaly
489 Mich. 83
| Mich. | 2011Background
- Nine consolidated Michigan property-tax cases involve STC classification challenges to machinery and equipment; local assessors classified as industrial real property or commercial personal property for 2008 taxes; owners petitioned boards of review then the STC for reclassification; STC denied; owners sought relief in circuit courts; Court of Appeals reversed, finding MCL 211.34c(6) bars court appeal; Supreme Court granted limited review on circuit court jurisdiction over STC appeals; decision resolves whether circuit courts have jurisdiction under MCL 600.631, and severability of MCL 211.34c(6).
- Property owners sought reclassification to obtain favorable exemptions/credits; reclassification determines tax burden relative to similarly situated property.
- STC decisions are final and affect private rights; these decisions are quasi-judicial and must be reviewable in courts.
- Lack of other review mechanism for STC classification decisions and constitutionality of statutory bar on direct judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether STC classifications are final, quasi-judicial decisions affecting private rights. | Taxpayers: STC acts quasi-judicially and decisions affect private rights. | State: STC decisions are not judicial; no direct court review permitted. | Yes; STC classifications are final, quasi-judicial, and affect private rights. |
| Whether article 6, §28 requires direct judicial review of STC classification decisions and bars MCL 211.34c(6). | Article 6, §28 guarantees judicial review of final agency decisions. | McAvoy allows mechanics of review, not abolition of review. | Yes; article 6, §28 requires direct judicial review and bars MCL 211.34c(6)'s prohibition. |
| Whether severing the final sentence of MCL 211.34c(6) preserves a constitutional right to review. | Severance restores review but lacks mechanism without doctrine. | Severability should leave no viable review path. | Severance valid; remaining statute allows review and severed sentence unconstitutional. |
| What is the proper remedy when the final sentence is severed given no other review exists. | Judicial review must be available in circuit court under 600.631. | Tax Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over STC classifications. | Circuit courts have jurisdiction under MCL 600.631; Tax Tribunal lacks jurisdiction for STC classifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 (1977) (legislature can set mechanics of review, not abolish it)
- Cruz v Chevrolet Grey Iron Div of Gen Motors Corp, 398 Mich 117 (1976) (constitutional review of administrative action)
- Thayer v Dep’t of Agriculture, 323 Mich 403 (1949) (extensive caution in judging constitutional questions)
- Boraks v American Arbitration Ass’n, 205 Mich App 149 (1994) (arbitrator quasi-judicial function; appeals context)
- Pletz v Secretary of State, 125 Mich App 335 (1983) (definition of quasi-judicial actions)
- Maki v East Tawas, 385 Mich 151 (1971) (state agency decisions as quasi-judicial)
- Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682 (1994) (constitutional limits on review of tax decisions)