|
No. 131011
| City of South Haven, |
|
Michael J. Roth |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Van Buren - Buhl, W.) |
|
|
| Van Buren County Board of County Commissioners |
|
Harold Schuitmaker |
| and Karen Makay, |
|
M. Brian Knotek |
| Defendants-Appellants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Van Buren County Board of County Road
| |
|
| Commissioners, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Michigan Townships Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Every four years, from 1976 through 1988, and in 1994 and 1998, the voters of Van Buren County approved nearly identical county road propositions providing for a levy “to be used by the Van Buren County Road Commission specifically for the purpose of repair and reconstruction of primary county roads and local county roads of Van Buren County.” All revenues raised by this millage were levied pursuant to MCL 224.20b, a provision of the general highway law, which requires that a portion of them be distributed to cities within the county in the absence of a contrary agreement by the governing bodies. In keeping with the proposal’s language, all proceeds of this levy were turned over to the Van Buren County Road Commission and used to construct, maintain, and repair county local and primary roads. None of the funds levied were given to the city of South Haven because no county local or primary roads are located within its city limits. In March 2004, the city sent a letter to County Treasurer Karen Makay. The city stated that Makay and her predecessors had not distributed any of the levied funds to the city, contrary to the statute’s requirements. When the county rejected the city’s demand for a share of the funds, the city sued Makay and the Van Buren County Board of County Commissioners. The trial judge dismissed the lawsuit. The judge ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction over the city’s claims, and that the city had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The city appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the city’s claims fell within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The defendants violated the statutory distribution formula because all funds were turned over to the road commission, the appellate court concluded. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
