Silverman v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents

• Decision Date: 17 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 97292,97292
• Citation: 516 N.W.2d 54,445 Mich. 209
• Parties: , 91 Ed. Law Rep. 314 Robert S. SILVERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 54

516 N.W.2d 54

445 Mich. 209, 91 Ed. Law Rep. 314

Robert S. SILVERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97292.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 17, 1994.

Helen V. Gallagher, Ann Arbor, for plaintiff.

Cindy M. Wilder, Maria G. Alfaro-Lopez, and Debra A. Kowich, Ann Arbor, for defendant.

Mary Elizabeth Kurz, E. Lansing, for Michigan State University, amicus curiae.

Richard C. Gould, Big Rapids, for Ferris State University, amicus curiae.

Thomas Butcher, Allendale, for Grand Valley State University, amicus curiae.

Richard Jones, Bloomfield, for Northern Michigan University, amicus curiae.

James Kendall and William C. Collins, Midland, for Saginaw Valley State University, amicus curiae.

Daniel J. Bernard, Detroit, for Wayne State University, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case concerns the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. After the plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court, the defendant moved for summary disposition on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction lies in the Court of Claims. The circuit court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the order of the circuit court, and we remand this case to the circuit court for entry of an order granting the defendant's motion for summary disposition.

I

In 1988, plaintiff Robert S. Silverman enrolled at the University of Michigan. Arriving from another state, he was charged the nonresident tuition rate.

In 1989, 1990, and 1991, the plaintiff asked the university to classify him as a Michigan resident for the purpose of calculating his tuition. These requests were denied.

A month after the 1991 denial, the plaintiff filed a complaint in circuit court. His complaint recited the many facts upon which he relied in his claim to be a Michigan resident. It then stated his demand for a declaratory judgment "that he is a Michigan Resident and entitled retroactively to a refund of the tuition difference he should have paid as a resident student if he had been correctly classified as a resident by the [university]." In a separate count, the plaintiff alleged that the university's criteria for determining residency were vague and arbitrary, denying him equal protection and due process of law.

The concluding paragraph of the complaint contained the plaintiff's request for relief--he sought a declaratory judgment, a tuition refund, and attorney fees and costs.

The university moved for summary disposition on the ground that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that this case fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.

The university's motion was denied by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals affirmed. ¹

The university has applied to this Court for leave to appeal. ²

II

The Legislature created the Court of Claims and established its jurisdiction. M.C.L. § 600.6401 et seq.; M.S.A. § 27A.6401 et seq. In general, the Court of Claims is the forum for claims in which money damages are sought from the State of Michigan or its constituent agencies. ³ In pertinent part, M.C.L. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419 provides:

(1) Except as provided in [M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1) ] and [M.C.L. § 600.6440; M.S.A. § 27A.6440], the jurisdiction of the court of claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, shall be exclusive.... The court has power and jurisdiction:

(a) To hear and determine all claims and demands, liquidated and unliquidated, ex contractu and ex delicto, against the state and any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies.

(b) To hear and determine any claims or demands, liquidated or unliquidated, ex contractu or ex delicto, which may be pleaded by way of counterclaim on the part of the state or any department, commission, board, institution, arm, or agency of the state against any claimant who may bring an action in the court of claims. Any claim of the state or of any department, commission, board, institution, arm, or agency of the state may be pleaded by way of counterclaim in any action brought against the state, or any other department, commission, board, institution, arm, or agency of the state.

* * * * * *

(4) This chapter shall not deprive the circuit court of this state of jurisdiction over actions brought by the taxpayer under the [General Sales Tax Act, M.C.L. §§ 205.51 to 205.78; M.S.A. §§ 7.521 to 7.549], or proceedings for declaratory or equitable relief, or any other actions against state agencies based upon the statutes of this state in such case made and provided, which expressly confer jurisdiction thereof upon the circuit court, or proceedings to review findings as provided in the [Michigan Employment Security Act, M.C.L. §§ 421.1 to 421.72; M.S.A. §§ 17.501 to 17.569(22) ], or any other similar proceedings expressly authorized by the statutes of this state in such case made and provided.

This quotation of M.C.L. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419 reflects amendments that were made by 1984 P.A. 212. Before 1984, Michigan appellate courts struggled to resolve whether the Court of Claims could render a declaratory judgment or grant other relief that was ancillary to a claim against the state for money damages. See, e.g., Taylor v. Auditor General, 360 Mich. 146, 149-150, 103 N.W.2d 769 (1960); Greenfield Construction Co., Inc. v. Dep't of State Hwys., 402 Mich. 172, 197-198, 226-227, 261 N.W.2d 718 (1978).

To end the uncertainty created by inconsistent decisions on that procedural point, the Legislature enacted 1984 P.A. 212, which also added M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1). The measure states:

In addition to the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon the court of claims by [M.C.L. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419], the court of claims has concurrent jurisdiction of any demand for equitable relief and any demand for a declaratory judgment when ancillary to a claim filed pursuant to [M.C.L. § 600.6419; M.S.A. § 27A.6419]. The jurisdiction conferred by this section is not intended to be exclusive of the jurisdiction of the circuit court over demands for declaratory and equitable relief conferred by [M.C.L. § 600.605; M.S.A. § 27A.605]. ⁴ In denying the university's motion for summary disposition, the circuit court noted the 1984 enactment of M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1), but said that the statute "does not purport to deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over a claim for equitable relief against the state merely because there is a money damage claim ancillary to the requested relief."

In its opinion of affirmance, the Court of Appeals said that the relief sought by the plaintiff "is more in the nature of an equitable remedy than damages." It said that the plaintiff "is not seeking money damages, but rather a determination whether he was a resident of the state of Michigan and a return of tuition improperly charged." In support of its analysis, the Court of Appeals cited Mooahesh v. Dep't. of Treasury, 195 Mich.App. 551, 557-562, 492 N.W.2d 246 (1992).

III

There are few appellate decisions applying M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1). This Court has not decided a case in which the statute is at issue, and the Court of Appeals has issued a small number of decisions that do not shed significant light on the present dispute. ⁵

In Mooahesh, however, the Court of Appeals was asked to apply the statute to resolve a similar controversy. Mr. Mooahesh was a 1987 Michigan lottery winner who brought a class action in circuit court, seeking relief from the Legislature's 1988 repeal of the statutory exemption of state lottery winnings from Michigan taxes. ⁶ Mr. Mooahesh and other members of the class had paid 1988 state income taxes under protest, so clearly he was seeking money damages from the State of Michigan.

The Court of Appeals examined the statutory language added by 1984 P.A. 212, and nevertheless concluded in Mooahesh that the circuit court had jurisdiction:

The circuit court, upon due consideration, concluded that plaintiff was not seeking money damages, but rather a determination whether it was constitutional to take plaintiff's property and a return of property taken improperly. We believe that the circuit court's analysis was correct. The relief plaintiff seeks is more in the nature of an equitable remedy than damages. Plaintiff does not seek damages for an unrelated injury, but rather the return of money allegedly properly belonging to him. Thus, the Court of Claims did not have exclusive jurisdiction; the claims for equitable relief were properly brought in the circuit court.

As explained in the next section of that opinion, we do not agree with the manner in which the Mooahesh panel analyzed M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1).

IV

The plaintiff in this case seeks money damages from a state board--he wants a partial refund of the tuition paid to the University of Michigan. ⁷ Plainly that claim, if it stood alone, would belong in the Court of Claims. M.C.L. § 600.6419a; M.S.A. § 27A.6419(1).

Before 1984, it was uncertain whether or how the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims would be affected by the presence in a case like this of other claims against the state for declaratory or equitable relief. By enacting 1984 PA 212, however, the Legislature authorized the Court of Claims to exercise jurisdiction over claims for declaratory and equitable relief against the state, provided that the plaintiff's suit also seeks money damages from the state or one of its agencies.

A complaint seeking only money damages against the state must be filed in the Court of Claims. A complaint seeking only equitable or declaratory relief must be filed in circuit court. A complaint seeking money damages from the state as well as equitable or declaratory relief against the state may only be filed in the Court of Claims, because that is the sole forum that is capable of deciding the...