Paquin v. Northern Michigan University

• Decision Date: 21 November 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 30448
• Citation: 79 Mich.App. 605,262 N.W.2d 672
• Parties: Sylvia PAQUIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 79 Mich.App. 605, 262 N.W.2d 672
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 672

262 N.W.2d 672

Sylvia PAQUIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY, a Municipal Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 30448.

79 Mich.App. 605, 262 N.W.2d 672

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Nov. 21, 1977.

Released for Publication March 7, 1978.

[79 MICHAPP 606] Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone by Thomas P. Hustoles, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

[79 MICHAPP 605] Wisti & Jaaskelainen by Andrew Wisti, Hancock, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before QUINN, P. J., and BASHARA and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.

D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., Judge.

The parties have stipulated to the facts in this case which involves resolution of a potential conflict between two statutes. Contending that the defendant university failed to obtain proper certification for its nursing program thereby preventing her from obtaining credentials necessary for a nursing degree, plaintiff Sylvania Paquin filed a $25,000 damage suit for breach of contract in Marquette County Circuit Court. Defendant university filed its answer and moved for accelerated judgment on the grounds that the Court of Claims had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of a breach of contract suit against a state instrumentality according to M.C.L.A. § 600.6419; M.S.A. 27A.6419. Plaintiff responded by arguing that the circuit court had concurrent jurisdiction based on M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5) which states in part:

"A board of control (of a state regional university) is a body politic and corporate. It * * * may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in all the courts in this state * * *." (Emphasis supplied.)

The circuit judge denied defendant's motion for accelerated judgment since he concluded M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5) was a more recent legislative enactment and therefore took "precedence" over the older Court of Claims statute. In denying defendant's motion for rehearing, the circuit judge agreed to certify that an immediate appeal, regarding a controlling question of law, would materially[79 MICHAPP 607] advance the termination of the litigation. GCR 1963, 806.3(1) (a)(ii).

When there is a potential conflict between two statutes arguably covering the same subject matter, they must be construed to preserve the intent and meaning of each and, if possible, interpreted in such a way that neither denies the effectiveness of the other. People v. Buckley, 302 Mich. 12, 22, 4 N.W.2d 448 (1942), concurring opinion of Justice Williams in Council No. 23, Local 1905, AFSCME v. Recorder's Court Judges, 399 Mich. 1, 10-11, 248 N.W.2d 220 (1976), citing his opinion in Borden, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, 391 Mich. 495, 523, 218 N.W.2d 667 (1974).

Each party argues that the two statutes can be construed to give full effect to both. The plaintiff argues the statutes are not inconsistent since they merely confer concurrent jurisdiction on the circuit courts and the Court of Claims. The defendant argues that the "all the courts" language of M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5) should be construed to mean all courts with proper subject matter jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant and reverse the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for accelerated judgment. For a number of reasons we conclude M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5) merely empowers a university board of control to sue or be sued in any court with appropriate subject matter jurisdiction. Since the Court of Claims has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over a money damage claim against a state instrumentality, the circuit court is not a court with proper subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim.

We begin with an examination of the statutory purpose of M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5). In general, the statutory framework governing state [79 MICHAPP 608] colleges and universities is found in Chapter 390 of Michigan Compiled Laws. As instrumentalities of the state, each college or university is created and granted powers and duties by specific statutory sections. Having been established at different times in the history of the state, each college and university is governed by separate sections with varied language and organization. Basic to most colleges and universities is a section which confers powers and duties for running the institution on a controlling board (whether called a board of trustees, board of regents, board of control or board of governors). Generally, in conferring powers and duties on the board, the Legislature has included the right to "sue and be sued". ¹

Defendant Northern Michigan University, as one of the four regional universities is covered by M.C.L.A. § 390.551 et seq.; M.S.A. § 15.1120(1) et seq. The object of the statutory sections dealing with the regional universities is set forth in the title:

"AN ACT to provide for the continuation of Central Michigan university, Eastern Michigan university, Northern Michigan university and Western Michigan university; and to provide for the organization, powers and duties of their boards of control; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts."

It is readily apparent that the purpose of the legislation is to provide for the continuation of the universities and to confer powers and duties on the respective boards of control. Within this statutory framework is M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5):

[79 MICHAPP 609] "A board of control is a body politic and corporate. It may purchase, have, hold, possess and enjoy to itself and its successors all the real and personal property of every kind now belonging to its respective institution or hereafter acquired by it and may grant, alien, invest, sell and dispose of the same; may sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in all the courts in this state; and may have, alter and use a seal."

Unlike the analogous statutes governing other colleges and universities, ² this provision adds "all the courts" language to the typical "sue and be sued" language. For the following reasons, the "all the courts" language cannot be read literally.

First, we must place M.C.L.A. § 390.555; M.S.A. § 15.1120(5) within the context of the overall statutory scheme governing institutions of higher education and within the context of the title of the act governing regional universities. The clear thrust of the statute is to confer power on the boards to sue and be sued and not to confer power or jurisdiction on the courts of this state. Neither the location in the statutory scheme nor the title of the act gives the slightest clue that the Legislature intended this section to modify or expand the jurisdiction of Michigan courts.

...