Outfront Media LLC v. Department of Transportation
330855
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Outfront Media sought an MDOT permit in 2015 to convert a preexisting static billboard along I‑96 in Detroit into a digital sign. Conversion required the billboard to be a “nonstandard sign,” meaning it was "legally erected before March 23, 1999."
- Documentary evidence showed permits/quotes in late 1998–March 1999, a scheduled pipe delivery of March 11, 1999, but job tickets, an invoice from the fabricator, and electrical activation all indicating work and completion in April 1999. An email from Outfront’s representative said the sign was "completely constructed on April 7, 1999."
- Outfront’s witness (Van Haften) gave speculative testimony—based on industry practice—that pipe delivery on March 11 would likely have led to hole‑digging and setting the support before March 23, 1999, but he admitted no personal knowledge of the actual events.
- An ALJ affirmed MDOT’s denial, concluding (1) preparatory acts like permits/quotes do not satisfy the HAA definition of “erect,” and (2) the credible evidence showed the physical work occurred in April 1999, after the March 23 cutoff.
- The circuit court reversed on equitable grounds and by substituting its judgment for the ALJ’s factual credibility findings; the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and reinstated the ALJ, holding the ALJ’s decision was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence and the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the billboard was "erected" before March 23, 1999 within HAA meaning | Outfront: industry practice and scheduling show main structural work (setting pipe) occurred before Mar 23, 1999 | MDOT: record evidence (job tickets, invoice, electricity date, Outfront email) shows work occurred in April 1999 | Held: ALJ credited documentary evidence; substantial evidence supports finding the sign was not erected before Mar 23, 1999 (so conversion denied) |
| Whether preparatory acts (permits, quotes, leasing) constitute "erect" under HAA | Outfront: early permitting and procurement steps were sufficient to establish erection before cutoff | MDOT: preparatory paperwork does not produce a physical sign and thus cannot constitute "erect" | Held: Preparatory acts are not within the statutory definition of "erect"; ALJ correctly ruled as a matter of law that such acts do not qualify |
| Whether the circuit court properly reviewed the ALJ decision | Outfront: equitable factors and MDOT delay justify relief; circuit court may grant relief | MDOT: circuit court must apply APA standards and defer to ALJ on facts and credibility | Held: Circuit court erred by relying on equity and substituting its judgment; APA standard (defer to ALJ; uphold if supported by competent, material, substantial evidence) governs |
| Whether the ALJ’s credibility determinations (Van Haften) should be disturbed | Outfront: Van Haften's industry‑based inferences are persuasive | MDOT: Van Haften lacked personal knowledge; testimony speculative | Held: ALJ’s credibility finding rejecting speculative testimony was reasonable and entitled to deference; circuit court should not have overturned it |
Key Cases Cited
- Nason v State Employees' Ret Sys, 290 Mich App 416 (2010) (standard for reviewing circuit court decisions on administrative appeals)
- Vanzandt v State Employees' Ret Sys, 266 Mich App 579 (2005) (competent, material, substantial evidence standard explained)
- Heindlmeyer v Ottawa Co Concealed Weapons Licensing Bd, 268 Mich App 202 (2005) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- DiBenedetto v W Shore Hosp, 461 Mich 394 (2000) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language)
- Huron Behavioral Health v Dep’t of Cmty Health, 293 Mich App 491 (2011) (courts may not set aside administrative decisions solely for inequity; must apply APA review)
- Dignan v Mich Pub Sch Employees Ret Bd, 253 Mich App 571 (2002) (circuit court error when misapplying administrative review standard)
- Guerrero v Smith, 280 Mich App 647 (2008) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- In re Townsend Conservatorship, 293 Mich App 182 (2011) (construction of statutory terms and similar‑nature reasoning)
- Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637 (2008) (principles of statutory construction)