46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford Cnty ( 2008 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
March 21, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
132986-8 & (221)(223)(228) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
46TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee,
v SC: 132986, 132987, 132988
COA: 246823, 248593, 251390
Crawford CC: 02-005951-CZ
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and CRAWFORD
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs,
Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
KALKASKA COUNTY,
Intervening Third-Party Plaintiff,
Counter-Defendant-Appellant,
and
OTSEGO COUNTY,
Third-Party Defendant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are
GRANTED. The motion for immediate consideration is DENIED. The application for
leave to appeal the December 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered,
and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be
reviewed by this Court. A public question being involved, and in light of the
relationships between the parties, no costs are awarded.
MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
The “inherent powers” doctrine provides trial courts with the authority to bring a
funding claim against the legislative branch where “a statutory function, the overall
operation of the court, or a constitutional function is in jeopardy.” Employees & Judge of
the Second Judicial Dist Court v Hillsdale Co, 423 Mich 705, 717-719 (1985). Bringing
such a claim necessarily includes employing attorneys, and it is obvious that courts
2
themselves have no independent means of obtaining funds for this purpose. Therefore,
counties are the only funding source available.
I write separately only to highlight this reality, while recognizing that the outcome
in this case may appear anomalous or unfair to the taxpayers of defendant counties who
now have to pay the costs of a lawsuit in which they have prevailed. However, once an
“inherent powers” lawsuit has been initiated by a trial court, as occurred here, I do not see
any alternative outcome.
Thus, it is to point out the obvious: where an “inherent powers” case looms
imminent, it is incumbent upon the people themselves to urge upon their elected officials
– both legislative and judicial – that they avoid litigation by making appropriate
accommodations with each other. For if this fails, and if a lawsuit is initiated, whatever
its eventual outcome, the taxpayers will be responsible for attorney fees on both sides.
That is, in the context of an “inherent powers” dispute, there is simply no alternative to an
assertion of direct self-government for avoiding a substantial attorney-fee burden upon
the taxpayers. There is simply no alternative to the people communicating to their
elected officials their views about whether litigation should be initiated by these officials
ostensibly on their behalf.
The significance of this Court’s decision in the underlying case, 46th Circuit Trial
Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131, 149-150 (2006), is that a very high standard must
be satisfied before a trial court can prevail in an “inherent powers” claim and compel
additional funding by the county. Presumably, this standard will deter the filing of all but
the most constitutionally compelling “inherent powers” lawsuits, those in which the court
simply cannot perform its most essential judicial functions. Id. at 160.
While this new and stronger standard may be of modest consolation to the
taxpayers in the three defendant counties, I believe this case, which restores proper
constitutional standards, will help taxpayers in other counties to avoid a similar situation
in the future.
KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
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.
March 21, 2008 _________________________________________
d0318 Clerk