154745 - Pontiac Bd of Trustees Police & Fire RPG v City of Pontiac
Attorney Information
Board
of Trustees of the City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retiree Prefunded Group
Health and Insurance Trust,
|
|
Ronald S. Lederman
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Oakland – O’Brien, D.)
|
|
City of Pontiac,
|
|
Stephen J. Hitchcock
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Plaintiff Board of Trustees of the City of
Pontiac Police and Fire Retiree Prefunded Group Health and Insurance Trust (the
Trust) was organized to pay the healthcare benefits of Pontiac fire and police
department retirees who retired on or after August 22, 1996. Under the terms of
the trust agreement, defendant City of Pontiac was required to make annual
contributions to the trust fund in an amount necessary to provide health plan
benefits. In 2012, Pontiac came under the control of an Emergency Manager (EM),
and did not make its $3.47M contribution to the trust fund for fiscal year (FY)
2011-2012. Instead, the EM issued Executive Order No. 225 (EO 225), which
amended the trust agreement to remove the city’s obligation “to continue to
make contributions” to the trust fund. The Trust sued, but the trial court
granted summary disposition to the city and dismissed the case, finding that
the EM had properly modified the city’s obligation to contribute to the trust
fund for FY 2011-2012 and that the Trust’s constitutional claim was without
merit. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, agreed that the Trust’s
challenges to the EM’s authority lacked merit, but reversed, holding that the
language of the EO—“to continue to make contributions”—did not encompass the
already accrued contribution for FY 2011-2012. The Supreme Court, in a
peremptory order, reversed the part of the Court of Appeals decision that
interpreted EO 225, vacated the part that discussed the Trust’s breach of
contract claim, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider
certain questions. On remand, the Court of Appeals, in a second published
decision, held: (1) the retroactivity analysis in LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group, LLC, 496 Mich 26 (2014),
applies to EO 225; (2) the retroactive application of EO 225 to extinguish the
city’s accrued but unpaid contribution to the trust for FY 2011-2012 was
impermissible under LaFontaine; and
(3) it was unnecessary to address otherwise applicable methods of assessing
retroactivity. The case returned to the Supreme Court, which has directed oral
argument on the city’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether
the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the principles of LaFontaine apply to the analysis of EO
225; and that (2) the retroactive application of EO 225 to extinguish the
city’s accrued but unpaid contribution to the trust for the FY 2011-2012 was
impermissible under LaFontaine; and
(3) if not, whether EO 225 constitutes an impermissible retroactive modification
of the FY 2011-2012 contribution under Const 1963, art 9, § 24.