William Froling v. City of Bloomfield Hills
327941
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- William and Marilyn Froling appealed the Tax Tribunal’s valuations of their Bloomfield Hills property (TCV: $1.575M in 2012, $1.625M in 2013, $1.675M in 2014).
- The City identified James Burton (engineer, longtime City consultant) in its prehearing statement; Burton testified regarding a grading remediation plan (R-15) and estimated cost (~$25,000).
- The tribunal allowed Burton to testify even though the tribunal’s prehearing summary omitted his name; the tribunal later permitted amendment and additional cross-examination/rebuttal opportunities.
- Disputes included admissibility of Burton’s testimony, scope of a continued hearing (limited to cross/rebuttal), evidence about bias, discovery (motion to compel denied as filed after discovery closed), and whether the R-15 plan was legal/liable.
- The Frolings also moved to disqualify the presiding tribunal member, claiming bias; the tribunal denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Froling) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Burton as witness | Burton wasn’t included on tribunal’s prehearing summary so testimony should be excluded | City timely listed Burton in its prehearing statement as required by rule; tribunal may amend summary to prevent injustice | Court upheld admission; Rule 792.10237(3) (specific) controls and tribunal properly amended the summary |
| Scope of continued hearing | Continued proceeding should permit full direct testimony (or qualify as rehearing under MCL 24.287) | It was a continuation, not a rehearing; scope limited to cross-examination/rebuttal was appropriate | Court affirmed limitation; MCL 24.287 inapplicable and Frolings had burden to present proof earlier |
| Cost-to-cure ($25,000) finding | Finding lacked substantial evidence because Burton wasn’t a contractor and had no itemized bid | Burton, as experienced engineer who designed R-15, was qualified to estimate cost; his testimony competent | Court found substantial evidence supported the tribunal’s finding and upheld the $25,000 estimate |
| Inquiry into witness bias | Should be allowed to ask whether Burton disliked Mr. Froling to show bias | Question was marginally probative to the relevant issue (viability of R-15); tribunal properly found it irrelevant | Court held exclusion was not abuse of discretion and any error was harmless |
| Motion to compel discovery | City failed to respond to discovery; tribunal should compel responses despite motion filed after discovery closed | Motion to compel was filed after discovery closed; tribunal has discretion to control litigation flow | Court affirmed denial: motion filed after discovery closed and no adequate justification for delay |
| Legality/viability of R-15 plan | R-15 would be illegal and would expose Frolings to civil liability (it directs water onto neighbor) | R-15 mirrors existing pumping practice; Burton (who helped draft ordinance) testified it would satisfy ordinance and be approvable | Court upheld tribunal’s adoption of R-15 as a valuation tool; tribunal didn’t order implementation and plan was found viable |
| Motion to disqualify tribunal member | Multiple adverse rulings and alleged factual misstatements required disqualification/en banc review | Adverse rulings alone don’t show bias; tribunal followed MCR procedure for deciding motion; no deep-seated favoritism shown | Court rejected disqualification and en banc claim; presumption of impartiality remains and procedure was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Drew v. Cass Co., 299 Mich. App. 495 (explains limited review of Tax Tribunal factual findings)
- Romulus v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 260 Mich. App. 54 (de novo review of administrative rule interpretation)
- Becker-Witt v. Bd. of Examiners of Social Workers, 256 Mich. App. 359 (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Donkers v. Kovach, 277 Mich. App. 366 (more specific rule/statute controls over general one)
- Chastain v. Gen. Motors Corp., 254 Mich. App. 576 (trial court may deny motions to compel filed after discovery closed)
- People v. Layher, 464 Mich. 756 (relevance of evidence of witness bias)
- In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich. App. 656 (standard and presumption in motions to disqualify/judicial bias)