Sch. Dist. of Birmingham v. Sch. Dist. No. 2, Fractional, of Bloomfield Tp. & Bloomfield Hills

• Decision Date: 27 June 1947
• Docket Number: No. 39.,39.
• Citation: 28 N.W.2d 265,318 Mich. 363
• Parties: SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, FRACTIONAL, OF BLOOMFIELD TP. AND CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

318 Mich. 363

28 N.W.2d 265

SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

v.SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2, FRACTIONAL, OF BLOOMFIELD TP. AND CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS et al.

No. 39.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 27, 1947.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County in Chancery; George B. Hartrick, Judge.

Suit by School District of the City of Birmingham, a Michigan third class school district, against School District No. 2, fractional, of the Township of Bloomfield and City of Bloomfield Hills, a Michigan graded school district, and Board of Education of said School District No. 2, fractional, of the Township of Bloomfield and City of Bloomfield Hills, Board of Supervisors of Oakland County, County Board of Education of Oakland County, Perry A. Vaughan and another, supervisor and treasurer, respectively, of Bloomfield Township, and Harry S. Starr and another, assessor and treasurer, respectively, of the City of Bloomfield Hills, to have territory claimed by defendant Bloomfield Hills District decreed to be a part of plaintiff district. From decree entered, the defendant district and its Board of Education appeals, and the plaintiff cross appeals.

Reversed and decree entered giving defendant district the right of annexation of that territory claimed by it.

Before the Entire Bench.

Berry & Stevens, of Detroit (Claude H. Stevens, of Detroit, of counsel), for the School Dist. of City of Birmingham, plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, of Detroit, for defendants-appellants School Dist. No. 2, Fractional, Bloomfield Tp. and City of Bloomfield Hills and Board of Education of said School Dist.

Paul O. Strawhecker and Earl W. Dunn, both of Grand Rapids, amici curiae.

BOYLES, Justice.

Plaintiff and appellee school district of the city of Birmingham in Oakland county started proceedings to annex to said district the territory of school district No. 5, township of Bloomfield in said county. The defendant and appellant school district No. 2, fractional, of said township of Bloomfield and the city of Bloomfield Hills in said county, also started proceedings to annex to its district approximately the north half of said district No. 5. Obviously both plaintiff and defendant school districts could not annex to their respective districts the same territory in the north half of district No. 5, and this litigation is to settle the issue as to which school district is entitled to said territory. For brevity, the plaintiff will herein be referred to as the Birmingham district, defendant will be referred to as the Bloomfield Hills district, and the district which will lose territory in either event by the annexation will be referred to as district No. 5. The other defendants, board of education, board of supervisors, and certain individuals in their official capacities filed answers disclaiming any interest in the matter except for an orderly process of levying and collecting taxes, and express a willingness to abide any final outcome of the case.

Plaintiff and defendant school districts both started annexation proceedings early in 1946. Some delay was caused by litigation and a temporary injunction, which was terminated by a decree dismissing the bill of complaint on June 14, 1946. No appeal was taken and that case is of no importance here except to account for the delay. When the time came for the levying of taxes the controversy between plaintiff and defendant came to a head. The city assessor of Bloomfield Hills refused to levy school taxes in the disputed territory within the city until it should be determined to which district it belonged. The Bloomfield township supervisor declared his intention to levy taxes in the disputed territory as a part of the Bloomfield Hills district.

Thereupon the plaintiff Birmingham district filed the instant bill of complaint in the circuit court for Oakland county in chancery asking that the territory claimed by the defendant Bloomfield Hills district, approximately the north half of district No. 5, be decreed to be a part of plaintiff Birmingham district, claiming that its proceedings for annexation took precedence over those of the defendant Bloomfield Hills district. In its bill of complaint, plaintiff sets up in full the proceedings on which it relies. These are admitted by defendant's answer, but the defendant claims that these proceedings give to it, rather than to the Birmingham district, the priority in claiming the disputed territory; and by way of affirmative matter the defendant sets up the proceedings on which it relies in claiming the right to the territory in the north half of district No. 5. At the hearing it was stipulated that the real parties in interest are the plaintiff and defendant school districts, and the defendant district No. 5. The circuit judge after a hearing entered a decree to the effect that the plaintiff Birmingham district had properly annexed all of district No. 5 and that school taxes should be levied accordingly, on the entire territory of district No. 5. The defendant Bloomfield Hills district appeals.

Plaintiff Birmingham district is a school district of the third class, existing under the provisions of Act No. 319, pt. 1, chap. 6, § 1, Pub.Acts 1927, commonly called the school code, as amended by Act No. 244, Pub.Acts 1929, Act No. 54, Pub.Acts 1931, Act No. 182, Pub.Acts 1939, and Act No. 169, Pub.Acts 1945, Comp.Laws Supp.1945, § 7219, Stat.Ann.1946 Cum.Supp. § 15.181. The territory of said district includes all of the city of Birmingham, a small part of the city of Bloomfield Hills, and some unincorporated territory in the township.

The Bloomfield Hills district is a graded school district existing under the provisions of part 1, chap. 3, § 1, of the school code, supra, 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 7115, Stat.Ann. § 15.21. Its territory includes the greater part of the city of Bloomfield Hills, and unincorporated territory.

District No. 5 is a primary school district existing under the provisions of part 1, chap. 2, § 1, of the school code, supra, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 7095, Stat.Ann. § 15.2. Its territory includes a small part of the city of Bloomfield Hills, and unincorporated territory in the township.

The dispute here is largely as to which provision of the school code applies to this annexation, and as to the proper construction of the language used therein. Chronologically, the proceedings taken by both plaintiff and defendant school districts for annexation of the whole or a part of district No. 5 were as follows: Dated January 16, 1946, a petition was signed by 45 persons described as ‘property owners and residents of district No. 5,’ directed to the Oakland county school board requesting that a certain (north) portion of district No. 5 (describing it) be transferred to the Bloomfield Hills district. On January 21st the above petition was forwarded, with a letter dated January 19th, to the county board. On the same day a copy of said petition, without the signatures, was forwarded to the Bloomfield Hills district board of education, with a letter requesting that the board ‘approve the transfer and make known your approval to the Oakland board.’ On January 25th a letter from the secretary of the county board of education was sent to the Bloomfield Hills board, requesting action on the petition. On January 30th a resolution was passed by the Bloomfield Hills board, approving the petition. On February 12th a resolution of the Birmingham district board of education was passed, determining that all of district No. 5 should be annexed to the Birmingham district, subject to approval of the electors. On February 14th a resolution of the district No. 5 board was passed, calling a special meeting of the electors of the district for March 4th, to vote on annexation to the Birmingham district. On February 21st a resolution of the Bloomfield Hills board was passed, accepting the transfer proposed in the petition and designating members to meet with the county board on March 4th to consider the change.

Prior to said March 4th, the suit hereinbefore referred to was started and a temporary injunction obtained restraining the election as to annexation to the Birmingham district. The meeting of March 4th between the members of the Bloomfield Hills district and the county board was adjourned from time to time while that suit was pending. On June 14th, the bill in that cause having been dismissed, the joint meeting which had been called by the Bloomfield Hills board was held, and the annexation to the Bloomfield Hills district approved. On June 17th the adjourned election which had been called by the district No. 5 board was held. None of the residents of the northern portion of district No.5, the land in dispute, voted in the election, allegedly on the advice of their attorney that the joint meeting of June 14th had already resulted in their transfer to the Bloomfield Hills district.

We agree with the trial court that the annexation of territory by Bloomfield Hills district is governed by the provisions of sections 13 and 14, chap. 3, pt. 2, of the school code, supra, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, §§ 7401, 7402, Stat.Ann. §§ 15.419, 15.420. Bloomfield Hills district is a graded school district, and Bloomfield Hills is a city with less than 10,000 population. Chapter 3, pt. 2, of the school code applies to alteration and consolidation of school districts. Sections 13 and 14 apply to graded school districts, such as the Bloomfield Hills district. Its caption, which was a part of the act as passed by the legislature, reads: ‘Districts composed in whole or in part of a city of less than ten thousand.’

The pertinent part of section 13 is as follows: ‘Whenever a change in, or the establishment of, the boundaries of a school district composed in whole or in part of a city having a population of less than ten thousand [10,000] is desired or becomes necessary, such change or establishment may be made by the joint action of the board of education of such...