Where the plaintiff Macomb County Prosecutor has requested an order directing the defendant Macomb County Executive to disburse specific funds appropriated by the Macomb County Board of Commissioners, that request should be allowed in part, as a home rule charter authorizes the Commission to appropriate funds so the plaintiff may hire independent legal counsel.
“In this original action under MCL 141.438(7) of the Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act (the UBAA), MCL 141.421 et seq ., plaintiff Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido seeks an order directing defendant Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel to disburse specific funds appropriated by Board of Commissioners (the Commission) of defendant Macomb County. We grant relief in part and deny it in part.
“At issue is the parties’ dispute over a total of $42,500.00 for the retention of five law firms to provide independent legal counsel to plaintiff. The parties disagree on whether the Commission had the authority to appropriate to plaintiff the funds under the charter.
“In 2009, Macomb County voters adopted a home rule charter under the Charter Counties Act (CCA), MCL 45.501 et seq ., and created the office of the county executive.
“This lawsuit represents the most recent installment of litigation between these parties, who have sparred over past budgetary matters. Here, plaintiff asserts that Hackel is infringing upon his discretion to spend monies appropriated to his office, while Hackel rejoins that plaintiff has no legal basis for his request for the funds.
“We conclude that, although 6.6.5 indicates that an elected county official cannot expend funds on independent counsel, it has an exception if such an expenditure is permitted by law. The Commission appropriated the funds, then issued a resolution that specifically authorized their use for independent legal counsel, and defendants have not cited anything in the charter proscribing that authority or process.
“We conclude that this Court has original jurisdiction under MCL 141.438(7), that plaintiff has the capacity to file suit, and that the suit was timely filed. Plaintiff did not fail to state a claim against the County in light of the charter language, and collateral estoppel does not bar the instant action. We therefore deny the County’s motion to dismiss.
“We decide that the charter authorizes the Commission to appropriate funds so plaintiff may hire independent legal counsel. Consequently, under MCR 7.206(F)(3), we grant in part plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition as to Count III. In all other respects, the complaint is denied. We also deny plaintiff’s motion for show cause regarding civil contempt.
“We issue a writ of mandamus directing Hackel to disburse the funds to plaintiff and directing that the parties work together to facilitate the appropriate contracts. This resolves the last pending claim and closes the case.”
Macomb County Prosecutor v. Macomb County Executive; MiLW 07-108150, 15 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals published per curiam; Feeney, J., Cavanagh, J., O’Brien, J.; Todd R. Perkins for plaintiff; David Porter for defendant.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0