Speicher v. Columbia Township Board
843 N.W.2d 770
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kenneth J. Speicher sued Columbia Township Board of Trustees and Columbia Township Planning Commission under the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., asserting they violated the Act.
- Trial court (and this Court on initial opinion) found an OMA violation and awarded declaratory relief but no injunctive relief.
- The appellate panel initially held that because only declaratory relief (and not injunctive relief) was granted, Speicher was not entitled to attorney fees under MCL 15.271(4).
- On reconsideration, the panel concluded controlling Michigan Court of Appeals precedent requires awarding attorney fees when any relief is obtained for an OMA violation, even if injunctive relief was not granted.
- The panel nonetheless disagreed with that line of precedent as contrary to the plain language of MCL 15.271(4), which, on its face, ties fees to successful injunctive relief; the court called for a special panel to revisit the issue.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to award costs and attorney fees to Speicher under existing Court of Appeals precedent; no costs taxed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 15.271(4) permits recovery of attorney fees when plaintiff obtains declaratory but not injunctive relief | Speicher: any relief obtained for an OMA violation supports awarding fees under prior appellate precedent | Defendants: statute’s plain text limits fees to actions where injunctive relief was sought and obtained | Held: Under controlling Court of Appeals precedent, fees must be awarded for any relief; but the panel concludes the statute’s plain meaning ties fees to injunctive relief and urges en banc review |
| Whether plaintiff forfeited fee claim by not requesting fees below or on initial appeal | Speicher: entitlement follows from appellate ruling that declared a violation | Defendants: plaintiff did not properly preserve a fee request | Held: Court awarded fees despite no earlier request, noting precedent requires fee awards and that the issue may be reviewed in interest of judicial efficiency |
| Proper interpretation of “obtaining relief in the action” in MCL 15.271(4) | Speicher: prior cases interpret phrase to include declaratory relief | Defendants: phrase means obtaining injunctive relief only | Held: Panel interprets plain text to require injunctive relief but follows precedent that treats any relief as sufficient; calls for special panel to resolve conflict |
| Whether Ridenour and subsequent cases were correctly applied | Speicher: prior cases expanded Ridenour to allow fees without equivalent injunction | Defendants: such expansion conflicts with statute | Held: Panel criticizes evolution from Ridenour but is bound to follow precedent; would overrule those cases if not bound |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v Detroit Pub Sch Chief Executive Officer, 265 Mich. App. 572 (Court of Appeals) (stating imposition of attorney fees is mandatory upon a finding of an OMA violation)
- Herald Co., Inc. v Michigan Tax Tribunal, 258 Mich. App. 78 (Court of Appeals) (held neither proof of injury nor issuance of an injunction is a prerequisite for recovery of attorney fees under OMA)
- Nicholas v Meridian Charter Twp Bd, 239 Mich. App. 525 (Court of Appeals) (declaring OMA violations and awarding fees despite no injunction)
- Ridenour v Dearborn Sch Dist Bd of Ed, 111 Mich. App. 798 (Court of Appeals) (initially supported fee award where plaintiff effectively obtained the equivalent of an injunction)
- Leemreis v Sherman Twp, 273 Mich. App. 691 (Court of Appeals) (identifies three statutory elements for fee recovery and rejects expansive reading when plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief)
- Schmiedicke v Clare Sch Bd, 228 Mich. App. 259 (Court of Appeals) (supported awarding fees based on declaratory relief)