Teddy 23, LLC v. Michigan Film Office, 313 Mich. App. 557

Background

Teddy 23, LLC (a film production company) sought a postproduction certificate of completion from the Michigan Film Office (MFO) to obtain a Michigan tax credit; the MFO denied the certificate after the Department of Treasury concluded expenditures were intentionally misstated.
Teddy 23 had used the expected tax credit as collateral for a loan from Michigan Tax Credit Finance, LLC (co‑plaintiff). Plaintiffs submitted an auditor report and Plante Moran disputed defendants’ findings, but the MFO reaffirmed its denial.
The MFO (an entity within the Michigan Strategic Fund) and the Department are distinct entities for substantive decisionmaking despite being administratively housed together.
Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Claims; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in Ingham Circuit Court, arguing reliance on defendants’ statements and guidance.
The Court of Claims dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(4) for lack of jurisdiction because the adverse decision came from the MFO, not the Department; the circuit court denied the delayed application for leave to appeal. Appeals were consolidated and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Revenue Act (MCL 205.22) gave Court of Claims jurisdiction	MFO was within Treasury and plaintiffs relied on Treasury guidance; Court of Claims should have jurisdiction over denial	Revenue Act authorizes appeals only from an adverse assessment/decision/order of the Department of Treasury, not the MFO	No — Revenue Act did not confer jurisdiction because the adverse action was by the MFO, not the Department
Whether Court of Claims Act conferred jurisdiction to review MFO decision	Plaintiffs argued Court of Claims could hear claims against state for relief including tax credits	MFO decisions are administrative agency actions; exclusive circuit court review mechanisms (APA or MCL 600.631) apply	No — Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction; administrative‑review routes lie in circuit court or under APA/MCL 600.631
Whether circuit court abused discretion in denying delayed application for leave to appeal	Plaintiffs claimed they were misled about proper forum and reasonably delayed filing	Defendants argued plaintiffs were not reasonably misled; plaintiffs waited six weeks after motions to file delay application	No — denial was within discretion; plaintiffs failed to show undue prejudice or that court abdicated discretion
Whether equitable estoppel prevents dismissal	Plaintiffs argued defendants’ references to a 60‑day appeal period misled them into filing in Court of Claims	Defendants argued estoppel cannot confer subject‑matter jurisdiction and any 60‑day reference did not reasonably indicate Court of Claims forum	No — even if estoppel applied, it cannot create subject‑matter jurisdiction; dismissal stands

Key Cases Cited

Durcon Co v. Detroit Edison Co., 250 Mich. App. 553 (jurisdictional review de novo)
Bukowski v. Detroit, 478 Mich. 268 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
People v. Melotik, 221 Mich. App. 190 (standard for reviewing circuit court denial of delayed application)
Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (abuse of discretion standard)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Detroit Edison Co., 465 Mich. 185 (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
Tryc v. Michigan Veterans’ Facility, 451 Mich. 129 (statutory definitions control interpretation)
Jackson Community College v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 241 Mich. App. 673 (available routes for judicial review of agency decision)
In re AMB, 248 Mich. App. 144 (subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel)
Soltis v. First of America Bank–Muskegon, 203 Mich. App. 435 (elements of equitable estoppel)
People v. Stafford, 434 Mich. 125 (abandonment/abdication of discretion as possible abuse of discretion)