Case Name: DELTA COLLEGE v. SAGINAW COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-12-18
Citations: 395 Mich. 562
Docket Number: Docket No. 55587
Parties: DELTA COLLEGE v SAGINAW COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Judges: Levin, Fitzgerald, and Coleman, JJ., concurred with T. G. Kavanagh, C. J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 395
Pages: 562–577

Head Matter:
DELTA COLLEGE v SAGINAW COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Docket No. 55587.
Argued March 4, 1975
(Calendar No. 5). —
Decided December 18, 1975.
■ In 1968, plaintiff Delta College sought and obtained from the electorate authorization to replace the 1958 millage of 1 mill for debt retirement and 0.5 mill for operating expenses with an unrestricted 1.5-mill levy pursuant to the Community College Act of 1966 (MCLA 389.144; MSA 15.615[1144]). In 1972 plaintiff’s board of trustees approved a levy of 1.62 mills composed of 1.30 mills for operating expenses and 0.32 mill for bond retirement. The Saginaw County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution disapproving plaintiff’s levy in excess of 1.5 mills, and spread a levy of 1.5 mills. Plaintiff sought mandamus, alleging that the defendant board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to direct the assessing officers of Saginaw County to levy taxes as certified by plaintiff. Defendant pled equitable estoppel, alleging that plaintiff misled the voters into thinking that no millage greater than 1.5 mills would be authorized. The Saginaw Circuit Court, Joseph R. McDonald, J., denied the writ. The Court of Appeals, Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Peterson, JJ., reversed (Docket No. 15432). The Saginaw County Board of Commissioners appeal. Held:
1. The clear legal duty of the board of commissioners to act, necessary for mandamus, is found in the general property tax law, which requires the board to direct that levies authorized by law be spread on the assessment rolls. Since the 1972 levy of plaintiff was authorized by Const 1963, art 9, § 6, and § 144 of the Community College Act of 1966, the board of commissioners had no discretion to refuse to spread the levy.
2. The remedy for a misleading ballot proposal is to void the election as mandated by § 16 of the Community College Act of 1966 and § 4545 of the Revised Judicature Act; the defense of equitable estoppel may not be used to accomplish that result indirectly.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-7] 64 Am Jur 2d, Public Securities and Obligations §§ 58-62, 120, 440-453.
Validity, within authorized debt, tax, or voted limit, of bond issue in excess permitted by law. 175 ALR 823.
[3, 5] 52 Am Jur 2d, Mandamus §§ 4, 33, 36.
Affirmed.
Williams, J., concurred but wrote that the issue of the termination date of the 1968 levy was raised by the parties and should be resolved by the Court. The new tax rate was intended to have the same termination date as the old rate which it replaced and the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies to the representations made by the college in campaign literature which suggested that the termination date of the new levy would be the same.
Opinion of the Court
1. Taxation — Community Colleges — Rate—Limit—Bonds.
Community colleges are authorized by statute to impose taxes without limit as to rate for the payment of principal and interest on bonds (MCLA 389.144[1]).
2. Taxation — Community Colleges — Rate—Limit—Bonds.
A community college which had been authorized by the electorate to impose an unrestricted 1.5-mill levy was authorized by law to impose a levy of 1.62 mills composed of 1.30 mills for operating expenses and 0.32 mill for bond retirement, because the amount for bond retirement is not subject to the rate limitation (MCLA 389.144[1]).
3. Taxation — Levy—Community Colleges — County Board of Commissioners — Mandamus.
The inquiry of a county board of commissioners when a community college seeks to impose a tax levy is limited to whether the levy is "authorized by law”; if the levy is authorized, the board has no discretion to refuse to spread it, and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel performance of its duty (MCLA 211.37).
4. Taxation — Community Colleges — Levy—Rate—Elections—Misleading Proposal — Remedies.
The proper means to challenge an election when a ballot proposal for authorization of a tax rate for a community college is misleading is to bring a statutory action to void the election (MCLA 389.16, 600.4545).
5. Taxation — Levy—County Board of Commissioners — Mandamus —Defenses.
The defense of equitable estoppel on the ground that a ballot proposal for authorization of a tax rate was misleading is not available in an action for mandamus against a county board of commissioners to compel spreading an authorized levy where the statutory procedure for voiding the election was not followed (MCLA 600.4545).
Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
Williams, J.
6. Taxation — Community Colleges — Tax Rate — Termination Date —Elections.
A new tax rate authorized by electors for a community college was intended to have same termination date as the rate which it replaced where the language of the ballot stated that the new authorization "shall replace” the old authorization, there was no reference to a speciñc termination date on the ballot, and campaign literature in support of the new rate created the impression that no new termination date was intended by the community college trustees.
7. Taxation — Community Colleges — Tax Rate — Termination Date —Elections—Misleading Proposal — Remedies.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply and an authorized millage for a community college should be held to terminate on the date suggested by representations made by the community college in campaign material for the taxation election, if the college did not intend that termination date but the public has relied on those representations.
Mellinger & Mahlberg, for plaintiff.
E. Brady Denton, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. McNamee and Patrick M. Meter, Assistants Prosecuting Attorney, for defendants Saginaw County Board of Commissioners and Saginaw County Clerk.
Amicus Curiae: Michigan Community College Association (Chapekis & Chapekis, P. G, for Bay de Noc Community College; Thomas & Delaney, for Charles Stewart Mott Community College; Dresser, Dresser & Marks [by John E. Oster], for Glen Oaks Community College; Santini, Jacobs, McDonald & Slic, for Gogebic Community College; Domke, Marcoux, Allen & Beaman, for Jackson Community College; Stapleton-Adams, P. C, for Kalamazoo Valley Community College; Jennings, Turkelson & Crawford, P. C, for Kirtland Community College; Steven C. Small, for Lake Michigan Community College; Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg, for Lansing Community College; Johnson & Wendt, for Macomb County Community College; Hughes, Trucks & Allen, for Mid Michigan Community College; William J. Braunlich, Jr., for Monroe County Community College; Thrun, Maatsch & Nordberg, for Montcalm Community College; Cochran, Vander Ploeg, Collinge & Silky, for Muskegon Community College; Clark, Stroup, Brown, MacKenzie & Pointrer, for North Central Michigan College; Denison, Devine, Porter & Bar-tush, for Oakland Community College; Touma, Watson, Andresen & Nicholson, for St. Clair County Community College; Miller, Canñeld, Paddock & Stone [by Wolfgang Hoppe], for Schoolcraft College; Phillipson & Boezman, for Southwestern Michigan College; Jackson & Lamb, for Washtenaw Community College; Miller, Canñeld, Paddock & Stone [by George E. Bushnell, Jr.] for Wayne County Community College; and Leonard J. Gavigan, for West Shore Community College).

Opinion:
T. G. Kavanagh, C. J.
Plaintiff college was organized under the Community College Act of 1955, 1955 PA 188, the predecessor of the Community College Act of 1966, MCLA 389.1 et seq.; MSA 15.615(101), et seq. In 1958 plaintiff sought and obtained its first grant of tax authority. The electorate approved a 20-year levy not to exceed 1 mill for debt retirement and not to exceed .5 mill for operating expenses.
In 1968 plaintiff sought and obtained from the electorate authorization to replace the 1958 millage with an unrestricted 1.5-mill levy pursuant to § 144 of the Community College Act of 1966; MCLA 389.144; MSA 15.615(1144).
That section requires the board of trustees of each community college to seek authorization from the voters for any tax up to a maximum of 5 mills. However, that section also empowers the board of trustees to impose unlimited taxes for:
"the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or for the payment of assessments or contract obligations in anticipation of which bonds are issued ." MCLA 389.144(1); MSA 15.615(1144)(1).
Until 1972 plaintiffs board of trustees did not authorize a levy exceeding 1.5 mills. In that year plaintiff's board of trustees approved a levy of 1.62 mills composed of 1.30 mills for operating expenses and .32 mills for bond retirement.
On September 12, 1972, defendant Saginaw Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution disapproving plaintiffs levy in excess of 1.5 mills. Defendant then spread a levy of only 1.5 mills.
Plaintiff filed a complaint for mandamus in Saginaw Circuit Court on September 26, 1972, which alleged that the defendant board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to direct the assessing officers of Saginaw County to levy taxes as certified by plaintiff.
Defendant in its answer pled the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel alleging that plaintiff misled the voters into thinking that no millage greater than 1.5 mills would be authorized.
The case was tried on October 2, 1972. At the trial the defendant asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff had circu lated misleading literature. The trial court declined to do so, but denied the writ anyway finding that the word "replace" as used in the ballot proposal did mislead the voters.
Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. Eighteen days after the trial defense counsel obtained from plaintiff copies of the literature alleged to have been misleading and attached that literature to the appellate brief.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the trial court erred in light of West Shore Community College v Manistee County Board of Commissioners; 389 Mich 287; 205 NW2d 441 (1973). We agree.
Defendants seek to distinguish West Shore on the basis of the remedy sought. The community college in West Shore sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to levy .3 mill to pay debt service, whereas the instant case is a proceeding in mandamus, which requires the showing of a clear legal duty.
That clear, legal and compulsory duty is found in Michigan's general property tax law MCLA 211.37; MSA 7.55:
"[The board of commissioners] shall direct that such of the several amounts of money proposed to be raised for township, school, highway, drain and all other purposes as shall be authorized by law, be spread upon the assessment role of the proper townships, wards and cities."
The board's inquiry is limited to the question of whether the levies are "authorized by law". If the board fails to exercise this duty, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the same. Robbins v Barron, 33 Mich 123, 125 (1876). Since the 1972 levy of plaintiff was authorized by Const 1963, art 9, § 6 and § 144 of the Community College Act of 1966, the board of commissioners had no discretion to refuse to spread the levy.
Defendants' asserted defense of equitable estoppel is ordinarily available in mandamus cases. However, that defense may not be used to accomplish indirectly that which may only be accomplished directly, to wit, the voiding of an election. Fulton Twp School Dist, Gratiot County, v School Dist No 4 Fractional, Essex Twp, Clinton County, 302 Mich 566; 5 NW2d 467 (1942). In West Shore, too, the board of commissioners alleged that the ballot proposal was misleading. In response this Court said:
"Where a ballot proposal is misleading, the remedy is to void the election. We are not asked to do that in this action. Therefore, we express no opinion as to whether a referendum to establish 'a maximum tax rate' is invalid in the absence of some reference to the power to levy taxes for the payment of principal and interest on bonds 'without limitation as to rate or amount'." 389 Mich 287, 297.
For further clarification we note § 16 of the Community College Act of 1966; MCLA 389.16;. MSA 15.615(116) mandates the proper means to challenge an election held under the act:
"Sec. 16. The general election laws, including the voting of absent voters, and all laws of the state relating to the hours for the opening and closing of the polls at elections and for preserving the purity of elections and for preventing fraud and corruption shall govern all elections under this act so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this act. " (Emphasis added.)
And § 4545 of the Revised Judicature Act of 1961; MCLA 600.4545; MSA 27A.4545 sets out the procedure to be followed in testing the validity of an election:
"Sec 4545. (1) An action may be brought in the circuit court of any county of this state whenever it appears that material fraud or error has been committed at any election in such county at which there has been submitted any constitutional amendment, question, or proposition to the electors of the state or any county, township, or municipality thereof.
(2) Such action shall be brought within 30 days after such election by the attorney general or the prosecuting attorney of the proper county on his own relation, or on the relation of any citizen of said county without leave of the court, or by any citizen of the county by special leave of the court or a judge thereof. Such action shall be brought against the municipality wherein such fraud or error is alleged to have been committed.
(3) After such action is brought the procedure shall conform as near as may be to that provided by law for actions for quo warranto."
Since the procedure for voiding the 1968 election was not followed by the Saginaw Board of Commissioners their legal duty is clear. They must spread the levy as authorized by the Delta College Board of Trustees.
We remand to the trial court for determination of a levy on property not heretofore charged as authorized by the plaintiff which will produce the sum that would have been produced by payment of the levy requested in 1972, mandamus shall issue to enforce such levy.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.
Levin, Fitzgerald, and Coleman, JJ., concurred with T. G. Kavanagh, C. J.
Lindemer and Ryan, JJ., took no part in the decision of this case.