Okrie v. State

• Decision Date: 19 August 2014
• Docket Number: Docket No. 319550.
• Citation: 857 N.W.2d 254,306 Mich.App. 445
• Parties: OKRIE v. STATE OF MICHIGAN.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

306 Mich.App. 445

857 N.W.2d 254

OKRIE

v.STATE OF MICHIGAN.

Docket No. 319550.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 8, 2014, at Detroit.

Decided Aug. 19, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Leave to appeal sought.

Law Office of Gary P. Supanich, Ann Arbor, (by Gary P. Supanich ) for plaintiff.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Matthew Schneider, Chief Legal Counsel, and Patrick M. Fitzgerald, Joshua Booth, and Margaret Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendants.

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and FORT HOOD, JJ.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Thomas R. Okrie, commenced this original action to challenge the constitutionality of Public Act 164 of 2013 (PA 164).¹ Plaintiff objects to the transfer of the Court of Claims from the Ingham Circuit Court (the circuit court for the 30th judicial circuit), where it has been housed since 1978, to this Court, in which appeals from the Court of Claims are also heard. Plaintiff challenges the legislation on various constitutional grounds. Defendants contend that PA 164 is constitutional and that the transfer was within the Legislature's authority. Although Michigan is not alone in creating a separate court or tribunal to hear claims made against the government, the Legislature's decision to house the trial court for claims against the state in the appellate court is very unusual and quite possibly unprecedented.² Nevertheless, plaintiff has not established that PA 164 is unconstitutional on its face.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. HISTORY OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS

In the mid–1800s, long before the creation of the Court of Claims, the Board of State Auditors, which was a specially initiated administrative board, decided claims brought against the state:

Before the Court of Claims was created, persons with claims for damages against the state initially sought relief before the Board of State Auditors. This board, originally created by 1842 PA 12, heard claims against the state until the early Twenties, at which time the State Administrative Board was created to hear such claims.³ 1921 PA 3, 1925 PA 374, 1927 PA 133, and 1929 PA 259. See, Cooperrider, Governmental Tort Liability, 72 Mich. L Rev. 187, 250–256 (1973). 1939 PA 135, the original Court of Claims Act, gave the state Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over claims and demands against the state or any of its departments or agencies. [Freissler v. State Hwy. Comm., 53 Mich.App. 530, 537, 220 N.W.2d 141 (1974).]

In 1939, the Legislature enacted the Court of Claims Act, 1939 PA 135,⁴ and therein adopted a comprehensive scheme authorizing lawsuits against the state and its agencies. See Greenfield Const. Co. Inc. v. Dep't of State Hwys., 402 Mich. 172, 195, 261 N.W.2d 718 (1978) (opinion by Ryan, J.). In 1961, the Legislature amended 1939 PA 135 and reenacted it as Chapter 64 of 1961 PA 236. The Court of Claims Act reflects the state's waiver of sovereign immunity from suit and submission to a court's jurisdiction. Greenfield Constr. Co., 402 Mich. at 195, 261 N.W.2d 718. The Court of Claims thus was legislatively created. It has limited powers, Feliciano v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 97 Mich.App. 101, 109, 293 N.W.2d 732 (1980), with explicit limits on the scope of its subject-matter jurisdiction, Dunbar v. Dep't of Mental Health, 197 Mich.App. 1, 5, 495 N.W.2d 152 (1992). The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is subject to Michigan statutory law. Parkwood Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. State Housing Dev. Auth., 468 Mich. 763, 767, 664 N.W.2d 185 (2003). The Court of Claims therefore does not have extensive and inherent powers akin to those of a constitutional court of general jurisdiction. Taylor v. Auditor General,

360 Mich. 146, 150, 103 N.W.2d 769 (1960), disapproved on other grounds in Parkwood, 468 Mich. 763, 664 N.W.2d 185.

In 1978, the Legislature exercised its statutory control over the Court of Claims, declaring in the former version of MCL 600.6404(1) that “ [t]he court of claims is created as a function of the circuit court for the thirtieth judicial circuit.” 1978 PA 164. Also, the 1978 Court of Claims legislation reflected that Ingham Circuit Court judges, and any judge assigned to that circuit court, could exercise Court of Claims jurisdiction. Thus, the Court of Claims had resided in the Ingham Circuit Court for 35 years before PA 164 was enacted.

In late 2013, PA 164 was introduced to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and transfer it to this Court. To the concern of many in the legal community, the bill was ushered through the Legislature with extraordinary speed and little allowance for discussion as to the wisdom of the proposed dramatic changes to the Court of Claims system.⁵ The Senate passed and gave immediate effect to PA 164 on October 30, 2013;⁶ the House of Representatives did likewise on November 6, 2013.⁷ Governor Rick Snyder approved the legislation, and PA 164 became effective on November 12, 2013.⁸

PA 164 provides that the jurisdiction in the Court of Claims is exclusive and that all Court of Claims actions “shall be filed” in the Court of Appeals. MCL 600.6419(1). Under PA 164, the Court of Claims consists of four Court of Appeals judges from at least two districts.⁹ The Michigan Supreme Court assigns the four judges, who may exercise the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. MCL 600.6404(1). The judges serve two-year terms, but may be reassigned. MCL 600.6404(6). As a result of PA 164, pending Court of Claims matters were transferred for assignment among the four Court of Appeals judges sitting as Court of Claims judges. MCL 600.6404(2). The clerk of the Court of Claims¹⁰ assigned the cases by blind draw. MCL 600.6410(3).

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In July 2013, plaintiff filed a verified class action¹¹ against the state of Michigan in the Court of Claims alleging breach of contract due to taxation of his pension under 2011 PA 38. The case, Okrie v. Michigan (Docket No. 13–93–MK), was assigned to Ingham Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina. In August 2013, defendants moved for summary disposition of the breach-of- contract claim. Plantiff thereafter filed an amended complaint alleging unjust enrichment, breach of employment contract, and violations of the contract and takings clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Plaintiff also alleged substantive and procedural due process violations.

On November 5, 2013, the Court of Claims granted summary disposition to defendants on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim. Defendants then moved for summary disposition of the remainder of plaintiff's claims. PA 164 took effect on November 12, 2013, and on the following day, Judge Michael J. Talbot, Chief Judge of the Court of Claims, issued an order temporarily staying all Court of Claims cases. On December 13, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant petition, the first such petition under MCL 600.308(4), to challenge PA 164.¹²

This Court ordered that plaintiff's petition proceed to a full hearing.¹³ In its order, the Court invited briefs amicus curiae; however, despite the public outcry from the legal community during the Legislature's enactment proceedings, no such briefs were filed. Therefore, this Court restricts its analysis to the issues raised by plaintiff.

After this Court issued the order directing a hearing on plaintiff's petition, Judge Servitto granted defendants' motion for summary disposition. When this opinion was drafted, reconsideration remained pending.¹⁴

II. DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARDS

In this petition, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of PA 164. An examination of the constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law. GMAC LLC v. Treasury Dep't, 286 Mich.App. 365, 372, 781 N.W.2d 310 (2009). Plaintiff's issues involve interpretation of the Michigan Constitution, a process that requires the application of three rules. The first is the rule of “common understanding,” which means that courts should give the Constitution the interpretation that the majority of the people would give it. See Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor, 481 Mich. 56, 67, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008). Consequently, when interpreting the Constitution, this Court examines what the text meant to the ratifiers, the people, when they ratified the Constitution. Mich. Dep't of Transp. v. Tomkins, 481 Mich. 184, 191, 749 N.W.2d 716 (2008). The second rule provides that, to clarify the meaning of constitutional provision, courts should consider the circumstances surrounding its adoption and the purpose sought to be accomplished. Kearney v. Bd. of State Auditors, 189 Mich. 666, 673, 155 N.W. 510 (1915). Third, courts generally are to presume that a statute is constitutional. Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Naftaly, 489 Mich. 83, 90, 803 N.W.2d 674 (2011).

Plaintiff raises a facial challenge to the constitutionality of PA 164. A facial challenge is a claim that the law is “invalid in toto —and therefore incapable of any valid application....” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). A litigant raising a facial challenge faces an arduous task. Detroit Mayor v. Arms Technology, Inc., 258 Mich.App. 48, 59, 669 N.W.2d 845 (2003). The litigant must establish that no circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid. In re Request for Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich. 1, 11, 740 N.W.2d 444 (2007). “ ‘The fact that the ... [a]ct might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient....’ ” Straus v. Governor, 459 Mich. 526, 543, 592 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Accordingly, we must determine whether PA 164 is capable of any construction that would make it constitutional. See Keenan v. Dawson, 275 Mich.App. 671, 680, 739 N.W.2d 681 (2007).

B. SEPARATION OF POWERS

Plaintiff maintains that PA 164 unconstitutionally interferes with this Court's jurisdiction and blurs the line dividing the...