Robin Spalding v. Mary K Swiacki
354598
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Robin Spalding and John Paterek (township supervisor and deputy) alleged the Armada Township Board violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by failing to post required website notice at least 18 hours before a January 21, 2020 special meeting.
- The board had physically posted an agenda on January 16 but did not post the website notice until 11:50 a.m. on January 21; votes were taken at the meeting.
- Paterek objected and sat in the audience; the other trustees proceeded and voted.
- Plaintiffs sued only for statutory damages, costs, and attorney fees under MCL 15.273(1) (not seeking invalidation or injunctive relief).
- The trial court concluded the board violated the OMA but had "substantially complied," and granted summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "substantial compliance" with MCL 15.265 defeats a claim for statutory damages under MCL 15.273(1) | Substantial compliance is not a defense to a statutory-damages claim; strict compliance required for notice when seeking damages | Substantial compliance should defeat statutory-damages claims (relying on Arnold Transit and Nicholas) | Reversed trial court: substantial-compliance standard does NOT defeat a statutory-damages claim under MCL 15.273(1); focus is on official's intent, not substantial compliance |
| Whether plaintiffs must prove the officials acted intentionally under MCL 15.273(1) to recover damages | Plaintiffs must show an intentional violation to obtain statutory damages | Defendants argued (at summary disposition) that there was no intentional violation | Court did not decide intent on appeal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold Transit Co v City of Mackinac Island, 415 Mich 362 (Mich. 1982) (applied substantial-compliance analysis to refuse invalidation of actions based on notice defects)
- Nicholas v Meridian Charter Twp Bd, 239 Mich App 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (affirmed denial of invalidation/injunction where substantial compliance preserved public rights)
- Leemreis v Sherman Twp, 273 Mich App 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (explained OMA provides three distinct remedies and standards)
- Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 497 Mich 125 (Mich. 2014) (reminded courts that remedies under the OMA are distinct and must be strictly pursued)
- Citizens for a Better Algonac Co Schs v Algona Co Schs, 317 Mich App 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (discussed remedies under the OMA and standards for relief)