Robert McMillan v. Susan Douglas
322 Mich. App. 354
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- McMillan rented a Battle Creek residence from Douglas from Aug 2011 to Oct 2014, paying $595/month (39 months).
- Douglas did not hold a valid rental permit as required by the Battle Creek Code (Chapter 842).
- On Oct 23, 2014 the City issued an order to vacate because there was no current rental permit; McMillan vacated Oct 31, 2014.
- McMillan sued Douglas seeking recoupment of all rent paid during the unpermitted tenancy, relying on Battle Creek Code § 842.06(c) ("no rent shall be accepted, retained or recoverable by the owner or lessor").
- The district court granted summary disposition for Douglas, holding § 842.06(c) did not create a private cause of action; the circuit court affirmed. McMillan appealed and leave was granted to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 842.06(c) creates a private cause of action permitting a tenant to recoup rent paid when landlord lacked a rental permit | McMillan: § 842.06(c) prohibits an owner from accepting, retaining, or recovering rent, so tenants must have a private remedy to recoup payments | Douglas: Chapter 842 imposes public duties enforced by the City; § 842.06(c) does not expressly create a private cause of action for tenants | The ordinance imposes a public duty enforced by the City; no private cause of action is inferred for tenants to recoup rent |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Genesee Co. Clerk, 258 Mich. App. 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(A))
- Great Lakes Society v. Georgetown Charter Twp., 281 Mich. App. 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (ordinance interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Goldstone v. Bloomfield Twp. Pub. Library, 479 Mich. 554 (Mich. 2007) (statutory construction rules apply to ordinances)
- Morse v. Colitti, 317 Mich. App. 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (give effect to legislative intent; enforce clear ordinance language)
- Levendoski v. Geisenhaver, 375 Mich. 225 (Mich. 1965) (public-duty ordinances do not, absent express language, create private causes of action)
- Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co., 309 Mich. 437 (Mich. 1944) (similar principle that public duties ordinarily do not create private actions)
- Claire-Ann Co. v. Christenson & Christenson, Inc., 223 Mich. App. 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (no private action when statute creates new duties and provides administrative enforcement)
- Ballman v. Borges, 226 Mich. App. 166 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (ordinance barring landlord recovery of rent serves as a defense but does not create affirmative private remedy)
- Hadden v. McDermitt Apartments, LLC, 287 Mich. App. 124 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (tenants may sue landlords for violations of statutory or common-law habitability duties)
- Bivens v. Grand Rapids, 443 Mich. 391 (Mich. 1993) (consideration of municipal authority to create private rights)