|
No.137552
| Department of Agriculture and Michigan Apple |
|
James J. Chiodini |
| Committee, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Kent - Buth, G.) |
|
|
| Appletree Marketing, L.L.C and Steven Kropf, |
|
J. Scott Timmer |
Defendants-Appellees. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board, Michigan Onion Committee, Michigan Plum Advisory Board,
Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee, Michigan Bean Commission, Corn Marketing Program
of Michigan, Potato Growers of Michigan, Inc., and Cherry Marketing Institute's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
Appletree Marketing, L.L.C., is an apple distributing company founded by Steven Kropf, its sole member. The Michigan Apple Committee provides marketing and research programs for Michigan apple producers and sellers, pursuant to the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, MCL 290.651 et seq. The act requires apple distributors to collect payments for the apples they sell, and to deduct a designated assessment from their payments to the apple producers. Those assessments must then be paid to the Apple Committee. Appletree collected the assessments in 2004 and 2005, but failed to pay those assessments to the committee. Instead, Appletree used the assessments to pay other expenses. The Apple Committee and the Michigan Department of Agriculture sued Appletree and Kropf, alleging that Appletree had violated the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act, and also that Kropf and Appletree were liable for common law conversion and statutory conversion. The plaintiffs moved for summary disposition, asking the trial court to award treble damages on the statutory conversion claim against both Appletree and Kropf. After a hearing, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in the amount of the assessments that Appletree deducted but did not remit, together with attorney fees, costs and audit expenses. But the plaintiffs were not entitled to treble damages, said the trial court, reasoning that “[h]ad the legislature intended a person who violated the [Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act] to pay treble damages, it would have expressly stated so.” The plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in a published opinion. The plaintiffs’ conversion claim was based entirely on Appletree’s duty under the act to remit the deducted assessments to the Apple Committee, so the plaintiffs’ statutory and common-law conversion claims would not exist without the act, the Court of Appeals reasoned. Because the act’s remedies are exclusive, the Court of Appeals held, the plaintiffs were barred from seeking damages based on common law and statutory conversion. The plaintiffs appeal.
Top of Page
|
