Kocher v. DEPT. OF TREASURY
Decision Date | 29 August 2000 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 214985. |
Citation | 615 N.W.2d 767,241 Mich. App. 378 |
Parties | James F. KOCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C. (by Michael W. Puerner and Barbara J. Oyer), Lansing, for the plaintiff.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Thomas Quasarano, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and SAAD and WHITBECK, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and granting judgment in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2). We affirm.
The facts are undisputed. Plaintiff, an attorney in Indiana, reviews governmental records, including unclaimed property holder reports maintained by defendant's unclaimed property division pursuant to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, M.C.L. § 567.221 et seq.; MSA 26.1005(1) et seq. These reports include the name, social security number, and last known address of persons who have unclaimed property. In November 1997, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. § 15.231 et seq.; MSA 4.1801(1) et seq., plaintiff requested that defendant allow him to personally inspect the unclaimed property holder reports for the annual transmittal reports for General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation for the years 1983, 1984, and 1985. Defendant refused to disclose addresses of the property holders pursuant to subsection 13(1)(a) of the FOIA, M.C.L. § 15.243(1)(a); MSA 4.1801(13)(1)(a).
After plaintiff's request for reconsideration was denied by defendant, plaintiff brought this action, alleging a right to the unclaimed property holders' addresses under the FOIA. Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), and defendant filed a cross-motion for judgment in its favor pursuant to MCR 2.116(I)(2). The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and entered a judgment for defendant. The court reasoned that because abandoned property holders would not expect the state to receive information about them from third-party financial institutions, it would be a "disservice" to the property holders to allow their addresses to be made public. Plaintiff appeals this order, requesting that defendant be ordered to disclose the addresses of the holders of the unclaimed property under the FOIA. This Court reviews such issues of law de novo. Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 437 Mich. 75, 80, 467 N.W.2d 21 (1991).
The FOIA protects a citizen's right to examine and to participate in the political process. Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 444 Mich. 211, 231, 507 N.W.2d 422 (1993). By requiring the public disclosure of information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees, the act enhances the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Bradley v. Saranac Community Schools Bd. of Ed., 455 Mich. 285, 291, 565 N.W.2d 650 (1997).
Subsection 3(1) of the FOIA, M.C.L. § 15.233(1); MSA 4.1801(3)(1), states:
Except as expressly provided in section 13, upon providing a public body's FOIA coordinator with a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the requested public record of the public body.
Section 13 of the FOIA sets forth a number of items that a public body may withhold from disclosure. MCL 15.243; MSA 4.1801(13) states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federation of Personnel v. University
...upheld a public body's decision to withhold identifying information under the privacy exemption. See, e.g., Kocher v. Dep't of Treasury, 241 Mich. App. 378, 615 N.W.2d 767 (2000) (addresses of property owners in unclaimed property holder reports); Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. Dep't of State ......
-
Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. DEPT. OF CON. & INDUS. SERVS.
...employees, the FOIA facilitates the public's understanding of the operations and activities of government. Kocher v. Dep't of Treasury, 241 Mich.App. 378, 381, 615 N.W.2d 767 (2000). Accordingly, our courts have interpreted the FOIA as an act requiring full disclosure of public records unle......
-
City of Warren v. City of Detroit
...Press, Inc. v. Dep't of Consumer & Industry Services, 246 Mich.App. 311, 315, 631 N.W.2d 769 (2001), citing Kocher v. Dep't of Treasury, 241 Mich.App. 378, 381, 615 N.W.2d 767 (2000).] Moreover, this Court has recognized that the FOIA's exemptions must be narrowly construed and that the par......
- Doyle v. Hutzel Hosp.