Case Name: McGRUDER v. MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1982-03-02
Citations: 113 Mich. App. 664
Docket Number: Docket No. 47873
Parties: McGRUDER v MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY
Judges: Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and J. L. Banks, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 113
Pages: 664–673

Head Matter:
McGRUDER v MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY
Docket No. 47873.
Submitted May 6, 1981, at Detroit.
Decided March 2, 1982.
Plaintiffs Linda McGruder, Brenda Berman, Sheila Martin and Olivia Price were tenants of a multi-unit apartment building in Detroit, Michigan. The building was owned by Walter Deuchler, an absentee landlord. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company supplied gas to the building and The Detroit Edison Company supplied electricity pursuant to contracts with Deuchler. Under the contracts, Deuchler was solely responsible for payment of the services. Subsequently, Deuchler required that Consolidated and Detroit Edison terminate utility services to the building. Thereupon, Consolidated and Edison terminated utility services to the premises. The next day, plaintiffs filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court against Deuchler, Consolidated, and Edison seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages for alleged wrongful termination of utility services, alleging violation of the rules of the Public Service Commission. On that date, the court, Charles Kaufman, J., issued a temporary restraining order, compelling Consolidated and Edison to restore utility services to the premises. Thereupon, services were immédiately restored by the utility companies. Judge Kaufman subsequently granted summary judgment to Consolidated and Edison. Thereafter, a final order was entered, dismissing the complaint against the utility companies. The plaintiffs appeal alleging violation of due process. Held:
1. The claim of violation of due process has not been preserved for review.
2. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. The applicable Public Service Commission Rule (1974 AACS, R 460.2162) applies only where the customer refuses to pay for service supplied to another person. There is no evidence in the record that Deuchler refused to pay the utility bills.
References for Points in Headnotes
16A Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 821-824.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 545, 574.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 685.
61A Am Jur 2d, Pleading § 236.
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, J., dissented. He agreed that the plaintiffs’ due process argument was not preserved for appeal. However, he would remand the case for a determination of whether the utility companies violated the Public Service Commission Rules. If it were determined that such regulations were not violated, the grant of summary judgment should be affirmed. If, however, the trial court would find that the utility companies should have made a determination of feasibility and notified the tenants that services could be transferred to their names before terminating such services, he would reverse the grant of summary judgment.
Opinion of the Court
1. Constitutional Law — Due Process.
The Due Process Clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions can only be invoked where there is state action (US Const, Am XIV, Const 1963, art 1, § 17).
2. Appeal — Appellate Courts.
The function of an appellate court is restricted to the test of questions which, in the court below, have been raised and saved for review, and a claim not so raised should not be considered by an appellate court, even if the claim may be of some merit and even if it is a constitutional question.
3. Appeal — Preserving Question.
Any issue not briefed and supported on appeal is considered abandoned.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, J.
4. Appeal — Appellate Function — Preserving Question — Constitutional Law.
The function of an appellate court is restricted to the test of questions which have been raised in the court below and saved for review; even a constitutional question which has not been raised below will not be passed upon on appeal.
5. Motions and Orders — Summary Judgment — Pleadings — Court Rules.
A motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is to be tested by the pleadings alone; it tests the legal basis of the complaint, not whether it can be factually supported; the factual allegations of the complaint are taken as true, along with any inferences or conclusions which may fairly be drawn from the facts alleged; the motion should be denied unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recover (GCR 1963,117.2[lj).
Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc. (by Mark H. Magidson), for plaintiff.
Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, for Michigan Consolidated Gas Company.
Michael D. Gladstone, for The Detroit Edison Company.
Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and J. L. Banks, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Danhof, C.J.
We agree with the dissenting opinion in that it affirms the trial court's dismissal of the constitutional claim. However, we also affirm the trial court's ruling that 1974 AACS, R 460.2162 was not violated by the defendants herein.
The Due Process Clause can only be invoked when there is state action. Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 597; 267 NW2d 72 (1978). All of the cases plaintiffs cite in support of their due process argument involve a governmental agency or state action creating or terminating the particular rights and entitlements. E.g., Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254; 90 S Ct 1011; 25 L Ed 2d 287 (1970), involving termination of continued welfare benefits, and Bell v Burson, 402 US 535; 91 S Ct 1586; 29 L Ed 2d 90 (1971), involving continued use of a driver's license.
Defendants assert that the question of state action was not presented to the trial court. Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence in the record that they argued the existence of state action below. Consequently, we agree with the dissenting opinion in that it holds that the claim of due process violation has not been preserved for review and is not presently before this Court. Oakland County v Detroit, 81 Mich App 308, 313; 265 NW2d 130 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 810 (1978).
The issue of whether defendants complied with 1974 AACS, R 460.2162 in terminating service without giving plaintiffs notice and a hearing has not been appealed. This Court will not review sua sponte issues abandoned on appeal. Royal Indemnity Co v H S Watson Co, 93 Mich App 491, 494; 287 NW2d 278 (1979).
At any rate, we find no error in the trial court's ruling. By its very terms, R 460.2162 applies only where the customer refuses to pay for service supplied to another person. There is no evidence in the record before us that defendant Deuchler refused to pay the utility bills. Furthermore, it appears that plaintiffs were without utility service for only one day, negating a finding of injustice.
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.
J. L. Banks, J., concurred.