Coblentz v. City of Novi
774 N.W.2d 526
Mich.
2009
Check Treatment

ANN COBLENTZ, LEE COBLENTZ, JOHN LEWANDOWSKI, and DEBORAH LEWANDOWSKI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NOVI, Defendant-Appellee.

SC: 138974, COA: 285431, Oakland CC: 03-046760-CZ

Michigan Supreme Court

November 13, 2009

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice; Michael F. Cavanagh, Elizabeth A. Weaver, Maura D. Corrigan, Robert P. Young, Jr., Stephen J. Markman, Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Oakland Circuit Court‘s application of a “due process” analysis in its April 24, 2008 order awarding the plaintiffs’ attorney fees, costs and disbursements pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. (“FOIA“). MCL 15.240(6) provides that courts shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements to prevailing FOIA plaintiffs. In determining the reasonable attorney fees due to the plaintiffs, the circuit court considered whether the city‘s conduct was “corrupt enough” to justify a sanction that “amounts to a severe criminal penalty,” and whether the requested attorney fees would bankrupt the city or whether a sanction would “burden . . . the public welfare.” Nothing in MCL 15.240(6), or decisions of this Court, authorizes consideration of such factors in determining a reasonable attorney fee award. For the same reason, the Court of Appeals clearly erred in analyzing whether the documents were substantively useful to the plaintiffs’ case. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for a re-determination of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the factors set forth in . In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

KELLY, C.J. (concurring).

I concur with the order remanding to the circuit court for a redetermination of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to . As this Court‘s most recent decision regarding attorney fee awards, is controlling here. Were it not for , I would remand for a redetermination of reasonable attorney fees under this Court‘s decision in .

WEAVER, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result but write separately to say I continue to believe that , a 4-to-3 opinion to which I signed a well-reasoned dissent, was wrongly reasoned and decided.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 13, 2009

Clerk