|
No. 128878
| 46th Circuit Trial Court, |
|
Thomas G. Kienbaum |
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, |
|
Noel D. Massie |
Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Crawford - Kolenda, D.) |
|
|
| County of Crawford and Crawford County |
|
Allan S. Falk |
| Board of Commissioners, |
|
|
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, |
|
|
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| County of Kalkaska, |
|
|
Intervening Defendant, |
|
|
Counter-Plaintiff, Third-Party |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| County of Otsego, |
|
|
| Third-Party Defendant. |
|
|
| _________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief of Appeal>>
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Michigan Association of Counties' and Michigan Townships Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The 46th Circuit Trial Court, which encompasses Crawford, Kalkaska, and Otsego counties, is involved in a funding dispute with Crawford and Kalkaska counties; the dispute concerns the court’s efforts to alter the court’s employee benefit plan over the counties’ objection. Two lawsuits, now consolidated, were filed when efforts to mediate the dispute failed, and a Kent County Circuit Court judge was assigned to handle the cases. The trial court held that the counties agreed to provide the enhanced pension and health care benefits sought by the circuit court. The trial court also concluded that the circuit court had the authority to implement the benefit package over the counties’ objection. The Circuit Court had already reduced its staff to a minimum and could not function properly if required to make more cuts, the trial judge found. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion, with one judge dissenting. The Court of Appeals majority held that the counties’ resolutions approving the benefits package constituted acceptance of the circuit court’s offer and formed a valid contract. The Court of Appeals also held that the circuit court had the inherent authority to sue the counties to obtain adequate funding, and that the circuit court’s requested budget, including the benefits package appropriation, was reasonable and necessary. The dissenting judge concluded that the counties could not enter into a contract with the circuit court to fund an obligation that the counties had a preexisting duty to fund under statute and the Michigan Constitution. The counties appeal.
Top of Page
|
