Kramer v. City of Dearborn Heights, Docket No. 131994
| Decision Date | 12 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 131994 |
| Citation | 197 Mich.App. 723,496 N.W.2d 301 |
| Parties | Louis KRAMER, Ronald Walkuski and Catherine Jacobson, individually and as members of a class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS, a Michigan municipal corporation; County of Wayne, a Michigan municipal corporation; Lefler-Ready Consolidated Storm and Sanitary Drainage District, Edward H. McNamara, Wayne County Executive; James E. Murray, Chairperson, Lefler Ready Consolidated Storm & Sanitary Drainage District; and State of Michigan, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charles H. Noble, Flat Rock, for the plaintiffs.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Milton E. Firestone and George M. Elworth, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State of Michigan.
Saul A. Green, Wayne County Corp. Counsel and Thomas A. Neenan, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for the County of Wayne, the Lefler-Ready Consol. Storm and Sanitary Drainage Dist., Edward H. McNamara, and James E. Murray.
Adam J. Dadaou, Corp. Counsel, Inkster, for the City of Dearborn Heights.
Before NEFF, P.J., and GRIBBS and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the trial court's dismissal of this action challenging the funding of certain drain improvements and the consolidation of drainage districts. We affirm.
There is no merit to plaintiffs' claim that the trial court improperly granted summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) to defendant State of Michigan. Plaintiffs allege that "there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether the new effluent levels in the Federal Clean Water Act actually is [sic] what prompted the Water Resources Commission to order what it did." Plaintiffs claim that they stated a cause of action simply by pleading that the Water Resources Commission's order constitutes a "new state mandated activity." The mere statement of a pleader's conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact upon which they may be based, will not suffice to state a cause of action. NuVision v. Dunscombe, 163 Mich.App. 674, 681, 415 N.W.2d 234 (1987). In this case, plaintiffs alleged that "upon information and belief, said Compliance Orders are new requirements since 1978, the passage of the Headlee Amendment." As the trial court stated in its written opinion, the orders at issue were based upon a violation of an act that was in effect before the adoption of the Headlee Amendment (Const.1963, art. 9, Sec. 29). The trial court did not err in finding that the activities here were not a "new activity or service beyond that required by existing law."
There is no merit to plaintiffs' claims that the action in this case is violative of the Headlee Amendment because it was taken pursuant to a 1988 amendment of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., rather than pursuant to the language of the pre-1978 act. The Headlee Amendment requires the state to pay for the increase in costs incurred by units of local government because of any new activity or service required by the Legislature or another state agency. Ann Arbor v. Michigan, 132 Mich.App. 132, 136, 347 N.W.2d 10 (1984). By statute, a law that allows a local unit of government to perform an activity or service, but does not require it, is not a "requirement of state law." M.C.L. Sec. 21.234(5)(h); M.S.A. Sec. 5.3194(604)(5)(h). The providing of a sewage disposal system is optional under the home rule cities act, M.C.L. Sec. 117.4f; M.S.A. Sec. 5.2079. Because sewage disposal by a home rule city is a permissive rather than a mandatory activity, the costs associated with implementing state requirements relative to sewage disposal systems operated by a home rule city are not subject to the provision of the Headlee Amendment.
There is no merit to plaintiffs' claim that the trial court erred in denying them declaratory relief. Plaintiffs argue that the petition of defendant City of Dearborn Heights to consolidate the three drainage districts was not properly brought under Chapter 20 of the Drain Code. We do not agree.
This Court's review of declaratory relief is de novo on the record. Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Civil Service Comm., 191 Mich.App. 535, 548, 478 N.W.2d 722 (1991). However, we will not reverse a trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Wayne Co. Sheriff v. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm'rs, 148 Mich.App. 702, 709, 385 N.W.2d 267 (1983).
Plaintiffs argue that consolidation should have been sought under Chapter 19 rather than Chapter 20 of the Drain Code. The trial court did not err in finding that Chapter 20 provides a basis for the consolidation. The statute relied upon by defendants specifically applies to drains located entirely within the limits of a single city, as is the case here. M.C.L. Sec. 280.486; M.S.A. Sec. 11.1486. Contrary to plaintiffs' claim, the statute also states that the petition need be signed by the city only. Id. As the trial court noted, M.C.L. Sec. 280.482; M.S.A. Sec. 11.1482 authorizes any improvement necessary for the public health and, thus, provides a sufficient basis for the consolidation here. We agree with the trial court that the petition and notice in this case (both individual and by publication) were sufficient. Moreover, M.C.L. Sec. 280.484; M.S.A. Sec. 11.1484, permits incorporation by reference of any consistent provisions in other chapters of the Drain Code. Thus, even assuming arguendo that some of the provisions of Chapter 19 could have been applied in this case as plaintiffs suggest, the trial court did not err in finding that Chapter 20 provided a basis for defendants' actions.
Plaintiffs also argue that consolidation of the drainage districts in this case amounts to an abandonment and that surplus funds must be refunded to plaintiffs. The trial court found that the drains had not been abandoned. We agree.
Drains that have "ceased to be of public utility and [are] no longer necessary or conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare may be declared to be abandoned." M.C.L. Sec. 280.391; M.S.A. Sec. 11.1391. Where drains are consolidated, abandonment is permitted but not required by statute. M.C.L. Sec. 280.446; M.S.A. Sec. 11.1446. Where abandonment is chosen, surplus funds are to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State, Docket No. 307790.
...391, 774 N.W.2d 89. 43.Maiden, 461 Mich. at 118, 597 N.W.2d 817. 44.Id. at 119, 597 N.W.2d 817, quoting Wade, 439 Mich. at 163, 483 N.W.2d 26. 45.Kramer v. Dearborn Hts., 197 Mich.App. 723, 725, 496 N.W.2d 301 (1993). 46.Duncan II, 486 Mich. at 906, 780 N.W.2d 843 (emphasis added). 47. U.S.......
-
Elba Twp. v. Gratiot Cnty. Drain Comm'r
...in applying MCL 280.441 and MCL 280.191 is the signature requirement. The Drain Commissioner contends that this Court's decision in Kramer v. Dearborn Hts. supports his position.14Kramer, however, dealt with chapters 19 and 20 of the Drain Code, not chapter 8. In Kramer, the plaintiffs chal......
-
De Bruyn Produce Co. v. Romero, Docket No. 138771
...record. However, we will not reverse a trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Kramer v. Dearborn Heights, 197 Mich.App. 723, 727, 496 N.W.2d 301 (1993). A lease is a conveyance by the owner of an estate of a portion of the interest therein to another for a term le......
-
ETT Ambulance Service Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc.
...a pleader's conclusions, unsupported by allegations of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action. Kramer v. Dearborn Heights, 197 Mich.App. 723, 725, 496 N.W.2d 301 (1993). The motion should be granted only when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factua......