Harbor Telegraph 2103, LLC v. OAKLAND CTY. BD. OF COMM'RS

• Decision Date: 26 November 2002
• Docket Number: Docket No. 239246,Docket No. 239249,Docket No. 239255.,Docket No. 239211
• Citation: 253 Mich. App. 40,654 N.W.2d 633
• Parties: HARBOR TELEGRAPH 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff, v. OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellant. Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellant, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee. Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee, Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

654 N.W.2d 633

253 Mich. App. 40

HARBOR TELEGRAPH 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff, v. OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellant.

Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellant, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee.

Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee, Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C., a/k/a Harbor Companies, Plaintiffs, and City of Pontiac, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oakland County Board of Commissioners and Oakland County Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Charter Township of Bloomfield, Intervening Defendant/Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and Oakland County Executive, Defendant/Cross Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 239211, 239246, 239249, 239255.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 10, 2002, at Detroit.

Decided September 6, 2002, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication November 26, 2002.

Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn (by Susan K. Friedlaender, Barry Howard, and Norman Hyman), Bingham Farms, for Harbor Telegraph 2103, L.L.C., Bloomfield Acres Acquisition Company, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1881, L.L.C., Harbor Telegraph 1899, L.L.C., and Harbor Vogue Plaza, L.L.C.

Poling, McGaw & Poling, P.C. (by Richard B. Poling Jr.), Troy, for the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.

Kupelian, Ormond & Magy, P.C. (by Stephen P. Ormond and Elaine A. Murphy), Southfield, for the city of Pontiac.

Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex & Morley (by William P. Hampton, Gerald A. Fisher, Sam J. Faycurry, and Janet Callahan Barnes), Farmington Hills, and Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. (by William K. Fahey), Lansing, for the Charter Township of Bloomfield.

Carson Fischer, P.L.C. (by Robert M. Carson, Karen H. Safran, and Gregory T. Obloy), Birmingham, for the Oakland County Executive.

Before: GAGE, P.J., and MARK J. CAVANAGH and WILDER, JJ.

GAGE, P.J.

This case revolves around efforts to detach a parcel of land that had been successfully annexed from the jurisdiction of intervening defendant Charter Township of Bloomfield to that of intervening plaintiff city of Pontiac. See Bloomfield Charter Twp. v. Oakland Co. Clerk, 253 Mich.App 1, 654 N.W.2d 610 (2002). The corporate entity plaintiffs (hereinafter the Harbor Companies), which own the area of land in dispute, commenced the instant action for declaratory relief by filing a complaint challenging the validity of township petitions to reclaim the annexed property through the statutory process of detachment and the authority of defendant Oakland County Board of Commissioners to verify the detachment petitions and schedule a detachment election. After the Harbor Companies filed their complaint, the Oakland County Executive vetoed the board of commissioners' resolution to schedule a detachment election and was joined as a defendant in the action. The circuit court entered two separate orders, which ultimately concluded that the executive's veto was invalid, and to which the parties raise various challenges. We reverse and remand.

I

A

Given the expedited nature of the circuit court proceedings, the factual record is less than complete but permits the following summary of background facts. The Harbor Companies owned land in Bloomfield Township that they wished to develop, but the township refused to permit the proposed development. Consequently, the Harbor Companies initiated efforts to have their land annexed to the adjoining city of Pontiac, which apparently had expressed support for the proposed development. In an annexation election that took place on September 11, 2001, voters in Pontiac and the area of the township to be annexed approved the annexation. Bloomfield Charter Twp., supra at 615.¹

Shortly before the occurrence of the annexation election, the township entered an agreement with the city of Birmingham to transfer property, including a portion of the land within the annexation area, pursuant to 1984 PA 425, M.C.L. § 124.21 et seq. (Act 425).² The agreement between the township and the city of Birmingham, dated August 30, 2001, appears to reflect the township's effort to shield the property from the annexation election.³

Following the approval of the annexation measure in the September 2001 election, the township initiated efforts to reclaim the annexed property by filing detachment petitions with the county clerk on October 26, 2001, pursuant to M.C.L. § 117.8.⁴ The county board of commissioners reviewed the number of petition signers and their voter registration status, the content of the petitions and the petitions' description of the area proposed for detachment, and concluded that the detachment petitions satisfied the requirements of M.C.L. § 117.6 and M.C.L. § 117.8. On December 13, 2001, the board of commissioners adopted miscellaneous resolution # 01305 verifying the detachment petitions and scheduling a detachment election for February 5, 2002. Also on December 13, 2001, the Harbor Companies initiated the instant action.

On December 21, 2001, the county executive vetoed the detachment resolution by the board of commissioners. The county executive explained that the petitions incorrectly identified the area proposed for detachment as a part of Bloomfield Township instead of Pontiac, that the map attached to the detachment petitions included "not only the purported detachment area but also additional parcels not included in the detachment effort," and that the legal status of the detachment area was uncertain in light of several pending litigations involving the land. The county executive also mentioned that the board of commissioners improvidently had ignored the advice of the county's corporation counsel regarding the detachment petitions and resolution, and improperly retained the services of an outside counsel.

B

The Harbor Companies filed their complaint for declaratory relief against the county board of commissioners and two individual members of the board. The complaint contained the following relevant claims: count I sought a declaration that the detachment petitions were invalid because they described the detachment area as a part of Bloomfield Township and contained maps inaccurately depicting the area proposed for detachment;⁵ count III requested that the circuit court declare the board of commissioners without jurisdiction to consider the validity of the detachment petitions in light of the pending lawsuits regarding the annexation of the area at issue and the Act 425 agreement, which actions might affect the legal jurisdiction of the detachment area and the validity of the detachment petitions and election; and count IV sought a declaration that the board of commissioners' adoption of a resolution verifying the detachment petitions was invalid on the basis that two individual commissioners participated in the circulation and signing of detachment petitions.⁶

On December 26, 2001, the township filed a motion to intervene that also requested the circuit court's addition of the county executive as a defendant. The township requested an expedited hearing by the circuit court in light of the rapidly approaching February 5, 2002, detachment election, for which the township already had commenced preparations. The township described itself as a necessary party under MCR 2.205(A) and also suggested that it had a right to intervene according to MCR 2.209(A)(3) given its incurrence of substantial expense in preparation for the detachment election, its interest in recovering jurisdiction of the previously annexed parcel, and its interest "in protecting the rights of its citizens to vote."

Regarding the merits of its legal position in favor of the holding of the detachment election, the township argued that because M.C.L. § 117.8 vests in the county board of commissioners the exclusive authority to determine with finality the validity of detachment petitions, the county executive's veto constituted a nullity. The township suggested that the county executive's veto powers were derived from a distinct statute that did not authorize a veto in the context of a detachment proceeding. The township argued in the alternative that because the "scope of the County's review [of petitions] under [MCL 117.8] is limited to the ministerial determination whether the petition complies with statutory requirements," "both the Commissioners and [Executive] are bound by the same ministerial duty to submit the question to electors." The township requested a writ of mandamus compelling the holding of the scheduled detachment election.

The circuit court scheduled a hearing for December 28, 2001, to address the propriety of the...