Michigan Supreme Court Holds that City’s Use of Building Inspection Fees is Not Reasonably Related to Service Costs (Part 2/3 of the Opinion)

To read about the case’s factual and procedural background, as well as Part 1 of the Supreme Court’s opinion, see https://detroitbusinesslaw.com/2019/08/30/michigan-supreme-court-holds-that-citys-use-of-building-inspection-fees-is-not-reasonably-related-to-service-costs-part-1-3-of-the-opinion/.

In the second part of the Court’s opinion in Michigan Association of Home Builders v. City of Troy, issued July 11, 2019 (No. 156737), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether Plaintiffs may maintain a statutory cause of action to redress a violation of MCL 125.1522(1).

Plaintiffs argued that a cause of action should be inferred because MCL 125.1522(1) codifies a common-law claim and remedy under Michigan law for unreasonable fees, fees that are not reasonably related to the cost of service, and fees that are not spent for the regulatory purpose claimed. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that all of the cases relied on by the Plaintiffs predated the enactment of the governmental tort liability act (GTLA). The Supreme Court held that because the Defendant is a public employer, they are granted immunity from tort liability under the GTLA, and therefore, an express or implied tort action under MCL 125.1522(1) could not be brought.

While a private cause of action for monetary damages did not exist, the Supreme Court also examined a possible cause of action for injunctive or declaratory relief. According to MCR 3.310(A), a preliminary injunction may be granted if a plaintiff can make a particularized showing of irreparable harm that will occur before the merits of the claim are considered. In addition, for purposes of a declaratory judgment, an actual controversy has to exist where a plaintiff pleads and proves facts demonstrating an adverse interest necessitating a judgment to preserve the plaintiff’s legal rights. In this case, because the Plaintiffs’ claims would constitute an actual controversy, the Supreme Court held that they may maintain their cause of action for declaratory and equitable relief.

A link to the opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/2019/156737.html

This article was written by Emily Honet, Law Clerk