-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

JUDITH REYNOLDS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

July 12, 2016 

v No. 326532 

Wayne Circuit Court 

HURON CHARTER TOWNSHIP, LC No. 14-010803-AV 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals by leave granted1 the order reversing the decision of its Zoning Board 

of Appeals (ZBA), which rejected plaintiff’s challenge to the Planning Commission’s decision 

permitting the Willow Methodist Church (the church) to erect an outdoor electronic sign. We 

reverse. 

 This case arises from a decision of defendant’s ZBA, which upheld the decision of 

defendant’s Planning Commission permitting the erection of an electronic sign pursuant to 11 

conditions. Defendant argues that the circuit court improperly ruled that plaintiff’s appeal was 

timely and that defendant was estopped from challenging the timeliness of plaintiff’s appeal. We 

agree and conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the case because plaintiff failed 

to file her claim of appeal within 21 days after the March 10, 2014 meeting minutes were 

approved on May 12, 2014. 

 The issue whether the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a case is reviewed 

de novo. Summer v Southfield Bd of Ed, 310 Mich App 660, 667; 874 NW2d 150 (2015). MCL 

125.3606(3) provides: 

 An appeal from a decision of a zoning board of appeals shall be filed 

within whichever of the following deadlines comes first: 

 

1 Reynolds v Huron Charter Twp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 27,

2015 (Docket No. 326532). 
-2- 

 (a) Thirty days after the zoning board of appeals issues its decision in 

writing signed by the chairperson, if there is a chairperson, or signed by the 

members of the zoning board of appeals, if there is no chairperson. 

 (b) Twenty-one days after the zoning board of appeals approves the 

minutes of its decision. 

“The failure to file a timely claim of appeal deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction to hear the 

appeal.” Schlega v Detroit Bd of Zoning Appeals, 147 Mich App 79, 82; 382 NW2d 737 (1985). 

See also MCR 7.104(A) (noting that “[t]he time limit for an appeal of right [in the circuit court] 

is jurisdictional”); MCR 7.122(A)(1) (explaining that MCR 7.101 through MCR 7.115 apply to 

zoning ordinance determinations unless MCR 7.122 provides otherwise). 

 MCR 7.122 governs appeals to the circuit court from zoning ordinance determinations by 

a zoning board of appeals. MCR 7.122(A). MCR 7.122(A)(3) provides that an appeal under 

MCR 7.122 is an appeal as of right. MCR 7.122(B) provides, in part, that “[a]n appeal under this 

rule must be filed within the time prescribed by the statute applicable to the appeal.” MCR 

7.111(C)(4) provides that “[t]he appellant must attach to the claim of appeal a copy of the order 

and/or minutes of the officer or entity from which the appeal is taken or must indicate that there 

is no such document to attach.” 

 The ZBA meeting corresponding with its decision took place on March 10, 2014. The 

meeting minutes from the March 10, 2014 ZBA meeting were approved on May 12, 2014. The 

May 12, 2014 meeting minutes were approved on August 11, 2014. The circuit court concluded 

in its opinion and order that plaintiff’s appeal to the circuit court was timely filed and that 

defendant was estopped from claiming that the appeal was not timely filed because it deliberately 

delayed the release of the certified minutes to plaintiff. The court pointed out that defendant 

forced plaintiff to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain an official, 

certified copy of the meeting minutes, and the May 12, 2014 meeting minutes were not certified 

until August 11, 2014. 

 We conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the case because plaintiff 

failed to file her claim of appeal in the circuit court within the statutory time frame. The parties 

do not dispute the fact that the ZBA meeting took place on March 10, 2014, and that the meeting 

minutes from the March 10, 2014 meeting were approved on May 12, 2014. In addition, the 

ZBA record contains no decision in writing signed by the chairperson or the members of the 

ZBA. Therefore, plaintiff was required to file her claim of appeal within 21 days after the ZBA 

approved the March 10, 2014 meeting minutes on May 12, 2014. Plaintiff filed a claim of appeal 

in the circuit court on August 20, 2014, which was well after the 21 days expired. Accordingly, 

plaintiff failed to timely file her claim of appeal in violation of MCL 125.3606(3). 

 Plaintiff contends that defendant deliberately delayed the release of the certified meeting 

minutes until August 12, 2014. However, the statute does not require that a plaintiff be provided 

with a copy of the official meeting minutes in order to file a claim of appeal. Instead, the period 

to file a claim of appeal begins to run when the ZBA approves the minutes of its decision, 

regardless of whether the plaintiff has a copy of the minutes. See MCL 125.3606(3)(b). 

Furthermore, the applicable court rule only requires that the appellant attach a copy of the 
-3- 

relevant meeting minutes to her claim of appeal, and does not require that the copy of the 

minutes attached to the claim of appeal be certified or signed. See MCR 7.122(C)(4). The 

parties do not dispute the fact that plaintiff had an unofficial copy of the March 10, 2014 meeting 

minutes before the time to file her claim of appeal expired. Therefore, plaintiff’s argument that 

defendant deliberately delayed the release of the official meeting minutes is without merit 

because plaintiff had the document she needed to file her claim of appeal within the applicable 

time frame, and plaintiff did not need an official copy of the minutes in order to file her claim of 

appeal. See id. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in concluding that defendant deliberately 

delayed the release of any document necessary to plaintiff’s appeal and in concluding that this 

fact was dispositive on the issue of jurisdiction. 

 Plaintiff contends that she had the ability to file a late application for leave to appeal 

under MCR 7.105(G) and that the circuit court preserved judicial economy by considering her 

appeal as a late appeal and employing judicial estoppel, rather than requiring plaintiff to refile 

her appeal. MCR 7.105(G) provides, in relevant part: 

 (1) When an appeal of right or an application for leave was not timely 

filed, the appellant may file an application as prescribed under subrule (B) 

accompanied by a statement of facts explaining the delay. The answer may 

challenge the claimed reasons for the delay. The circuit court may consider the 

length of and the reasons for the delay in deciding whether to grant the 

application. 

 (2) A late application may not be filed more than 6 months after entry of: 

 (a) the order, judgment, or decision appealed[.] 

 There is no indication in the record that the circuit court considered plaintiff’s claim of 

appeal as a late application for leave to appeal or that it employed judicial estoppel in order to 

preserve judicial economy and prevent plaintiff from having to refile her appeal. Instead, the 

court concluded that plaintiff timely filed her appeal on August 20, 2014, and concluded that 

defendant was estopped from claiming otherwise since it deliberately delayed the release of the 

certified minutes to plaintiff. MCR 7.103(B)(2) provides that the circuit court may grant leave to 

appeal from “a final order or decision of an agency from which an appeal by leave to the circuit 

court is provided by law[.]” MCR 7.103(B)(4) provides that the circuit court may grant leave to 

appeal from “a final order or decision of an agency if an appeal of right was not timely filed and 

a statute authorizes a late appeal[.]” The applicable statute does not authorize an appeal by leave 

granted or a late appeal. See MCL 125.3606(3). Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument fails. See 

MCR 7.105(G). 

 Plaintiff did not timely file her claim of appeal. The circuit court erred in concluding that 

defendant was estopped from claiming the appeal was not timely filed because there is no 

indication that defendant deliberately delayed the release of any documents to plaintiff that were 

necessary to her appeal, and, even if plaintiff did not obtain a certified copy of March 10, 2014 

meeting minutes or an unofficial or certified copy of the May 12, 2014 meeting minutes until 

after the time to file her claim of appeal expired, the court rule only required that plaintiff 

attached an unofficial copy of the March 10, 2014 meeting minutes to her claim of appeal. 
-4- 

Accordingly, plaintiff failed to timely file her claim of appeal in the circuit court, and the court 

lacked jurisdiction over her appeal. See MCL 125.3606(3)(b); MCR 7.104(A). Because we 

conclude that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s appeal, we need not address 

defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal. 

 Reversed. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra