Source: https://www.michigan-appeal-attorney.com/Class-Action-Law-Suit-Okrie-v-State-of-Michigan/Brief-in-Support-of-Motin-to-Stay-COA.shtml
Timestamp: 2017-12-11 11:18:09
Document Index: 403443962

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', '§ 1', 'art 6', '§ 1', 'art 7', '§ 1', 'art 6', '§ 1', 'art 6', '§ 10', 'art 6', '§ 15', 'art 1', '§ 6', 'art 6', '§ 1', '§ 308', '§ 15', '§ 15']

Brief in Support of Motin to Stay (COA) | Law Office of Gary P. Supanich | Michigan
Plaintiffs, COA No. 319550
v HON. Deborah Servitto
PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 2013 PA 164
I. THE 1963 MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO EXPAND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF COURT OF APPEALS TO INCLUDE THE COURT OF CLAIMS...... 2
A. The 1835 and 1850 Constitutions. 2
B. The 1908 Constitution. 3
C. The 1963 Constitution. 6
II. THE 1963 MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO COMBINE THE OFFICE OF A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH THE OFFICE OF A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS...... 9
CONCLUSION AND RELIEF. 11
Streeter v Paton, 7 Mich 341...................................... 2
Okrie et al v State of Michigan et al, Ct. of Claims Case No. 13-93-MK.................................................... 1
Nichols v Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 130 Mich 187 (1902).................................................. 1
In re Brewster Street Housing Site, 291 Mich 313 (1939)......................................................................... 2
Viculin v Department of Civil Service, 386 Mich 375 (1971) ...................................................................... 10
Evans v US Rubber Co, 379 Mich 457 (1967)........... 10
Giannotta v Governor, 71 Mich App 15 (1976)......... 10
In re Application of Governor, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals, 381 Mich 1 (1968)................................. 8, 9
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership v State of Michigan, 489 Mich 83 (2011)................... 8
McAvoy v H B Serman Co, 401 Mich 419 (1977)........ 8
Buback v Governor, 380 Mich 209 (1968)............... 6, 7
Attorney General, ex rel, Cook v O'Neill, 280 Mich 649 (1937)......................................................................... 4
Nichols v Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 130 Mich 187 (1902)................................................... 3
People ex rel Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney v Kearney, 345 Mich 680 (1956).................................... 4
Gray v Hakenjos, 366 Mich 588 (1962)...................... 4
In re Manufacturer's Freight Forwarding Co, 294 Mich 57 (1940)........................................................ 4, 9
Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1976 PA 240, 400 Mich 311 (1977)........................................... 2
Const 1835, art 6, § 1................................................. 2
Const 1850, art 6, § 1................................................. 2
Const 1908, art 7, § 1................................................. 3
Const 1963, art 6, § 1................................................. 6
Const 1963, art 6, § 10............................................... 6
Const 1963, art 6, § 15............................................ 7, 9
MCL 600.308.............................................................. 6
Convention Comment on Const 1963, art 1, § 6......... 6
2011 PA 38................................................................. 1
2013 PA 164...................................................... passim
On July 9, 2013, Plaintiff Mr. Thomas Okrie, and other similarly situated retired state and public school employees, filed a Verified Class Action lawsuit in the Court of Claims (Okrie et al v State of Michigan et al, No. 13-93-MK) challenging the state taxation of their pensions pursuant to 2011 PA 38. This case was randomly assigned Judge Rosemarie Aquilina of the Ingham County Circuit Court. On November 13, 2013, 2013 PA 164 ("the Act") was signed into law by Governor Snyder, transferring the Court of Claims from the Ingham Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals, directing the Michigan Supreme Court to appoint four judges of the Court of Appeals to be judges of the Court of Claims for two-year renewable terms. On December 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Petition in the Court of Appeals challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Among the questions presented in the Petition challenging the Act as violative of the separation of powers doctrine under the state constitution and the due process clauses under the state and federal constitutions are whether the 1963 Michigan Constitution allows the Legislature to expand the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to include the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and thereby combine the office of a judge on the Court of Appeals with the office of a judge on the Court of Claims. Because there are compelling grounds showing 2013 PA 164 transferring the Court of Claims to the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional in violation of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, this Court should grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay the Proceedings as Judge Servitto lacks jurisdiction to act as a Court of Claims judge in this matter.
I. THE 1963 MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO EXPAND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF COURT OF APPEALS TO INCLUDE THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
A. The 1835 and 1850 Constitutions
At the outset, it is important to underscore that "[t]he Michigan Constitution is not a grant of power to the Legislature as is the United States Constitution, but rather, it is a limitation on general legislative power." Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1976 PA 240, 400 Mich 311, 317-318 (1977), citing In re Brewster Street Housing Site, 291 Mich 313 (1939). Before statehood, Michigan's first Constitution provided that "the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such other courts as the legislature may from time to time establish." 1835 Const, art 6, § 1. That changed with the 1850 Constitution. As stated in Streeter v Paton, 7 Mich 341, 346 (1859):
B. The 1908 Constitution
Because judicial power was exclusively entrusted to the judiciary by the Constitution, the other branches of government could not diminish, exercise or interfere with it, absent constitutional authorization. Id; see also People ex rel Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney v Kearney, 345 Mich 680 (1956); Gray v Hakenjos, 366 Mich 588 (1962). Accordingly, in In re Manufacturer's Freight Forwarding Co, 294 Mich 57, 69 (1940), the Supreme Court said about itself:
The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be provided by law and the practice and procedure therein shall be prescribed by rules of the supreme court. (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to the Constitution, the Legislature thus enacted § 308 of the Revised Judicature Act, setting forth the constitutionally-mandated appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. MCL 600.308. Besides this original grant of appellate jurisdiction, the Legislature has also assigned the Court of Appeals with original jurisdiction to issue prerogative and remedial writs or orders, as provided by the rules of the Supreme Court.
The Constitution of 1963 does not define the entire jurisdiction of probate courts. This responsibility is left to the legislature by article 6, § 15:
[. . . ] The jurisdiction, powers and duties of the probate court and of the judges thereof shall be provided by law.
The provision of the 1963 Constitution last above quoted placed the responsibility on the legislature to draft the law but did not grant authority for departure from the requirements and proscriptions of the Constitution. It does not have the effect of permitting disregard of the separation of powers article. [Id. at 226-227] (Emphasis added).
Thus, the Constitution does not allow the Legislature to redesign by statute the constitutional structure of our court system, as it did here with the enactment of 2013 PA 164. Obviously, the Court of Appeals is called by that name for a reason - to be an intermediate appellate court between the Supreme Court and other inferior courts. Because appellate courts exercise appellate jurisdiction only in cases commenced and tried before lower courts whose judgments are being appealed, the Legislature does not have the power to transfer the Court of Claims to the Court of Appeals or to direct the Supreme Court to designate four judges on the Court of Appeals to occupy two-year renewable terms as judges on the Court of Claims See In re Manufacturer's Freight Forwarding Co, supra. As recognized by Justice Adams in his opinion denying jurisdiction in In re Application of Governor, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals, supra, 381 Mich at 19, "it is the jurisdiction of the court that controls the power of a judge to proceed under the statute." (Emphasis in original).
II. THE 1963 MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO COMBINE THE OFFICE OF A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH THE OFFICE OF A JUDGE ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Given the constitutionally-tiered structure of our present court system, the Constitution also does not allow the Legislature to combine the office of a Court of Appeals judge with the office of a Court of Claims judge - a judicial office of limited jurisdiction. Here again, it is instructive to examine Article 6, § 15 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, which provides in pertinent part:
While the Constitution explicitly provides that the Legislature may combine the office of a probate judge "with any judicial office of a limited jurisdiction within a county," it notably made no such provision for combining the office of a Court of Appeals judge with another judicial office of a limited jurisdiction, e.g., a legislatively-created court such as the Court of Claims. This significant omission implies that the Constitution does not allow the Legislature by statute to combine the office of a judge on the Court of Appeals with the office of judge on the Court of Claims, or any office of a judge on a court of limited jurisdiction created by the Legislature. See Giannotta v Governor, 71 Mich App 15, 18 (1976) (noting that "the Supreme Court has approved the interpretative method of comparing related provisions of the law in order to reach an understanding of what the drafters actually intended by their use or omission of terms"), citing Viculin v Department of Civil Service, 386 Mich 375, 390-392 (1971) and Evans v US Rubber Co, 379 Mich 457, 460-463 (1967).
It goes without saying that the Legislature may not repeal a constitutional provision by statute. To amend the Michigan Constitution requires a voter initiative or a constitutional convention. In short, because the plain language of the Michigan Constitution controls, any doubts about whether the Act may allow the Supreme Court to appoint or assign a judge elected to sit on the Court of Appeals to sit at the same time on a permanent basis for a renewable two-year term as a member of the Court of Claims must be given to the voters of the State of Michigan to decide. Finally, this is not the only case in which the Michigan Legislature has ignored the constitutional requirement for an act to take immediate effect. Specifically, in this case, the vote in the House of Representatives (57 votes in favor, 52 opposed) failed to satisfy the two-thirds vote requirement for an act to take immediate effect. Simply put, the Legislature violated the Michigan Constitution's express limitation on its power to give laws immediate effect. It is time to reject the power of the fait accompli and to return to the democratic rule of law in Michigan. For these and the foregoing reasons presented here and in Plaintiffs' Petition, this Court should grant the Motion to Stay Proceedings in this matter in the Court of Claims, pending a determination of the constitutionality of 2013 PA 164.