Case Name: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT v. CITY OF DETROIT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1985-06-19
Citations: 143 Mich. App. 651
Docket Number: Docket No. 67445
Parties: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT v CITY OF DETROIT
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and R. M. Maher and Cynar, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 143
Pages: 651–660

Head Matter:
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT v CITY OF DETROIT
Docket No. 67445.
Submitted April 12, 1983, at Detroit.
Decided June 19, 1985.
Leave to appeal applied for.
In 1980, 1981 and 1982, the City of Detroit failed to pay approximately $147,000,000 in contributions to the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The Board of Trustees of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit retained independent legal counsel to pursue litigation in the Wayne Circuit Court against the City of Detroit and others to collect the amount owed. Defendant counterclaimed, arguing that the Board of Trustees of the Retirement System could not retain independent legal counsel but had to rely on the city’s corporation counsel for advice and that, since it was being sued, its corporation counsel would appoint counsel for the Board of Trustees. The court, Roland L. Olzark, J., granted summary judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees, finding that it could retain independent legal counsel to pursue its claims against the city. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. The boards of trustees of all public employee retirement systems are authorized by statute to independently retain private legal counsel. The statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and should be enforced as written.
2. The facts of the instant case clearly show that independent legal service is necessary, since there would be an obvious conflict of interest if the city represented the retirement system or appointed counsel for it.
3. The fact that the city charter states that the city’s corporation counsel must represent all of the city’s administrative agencies is immaterial. Where a city charter provision conflicts with general statutory law, the statute controls in all matters which are not of purely local character. The trial court cor rectly ruled that the statute controls and that plaintiff may retain independent legal counsel when necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the retirement system.
References for Points in Headnotes
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 142 et seq.
60 Am Jur 2d, Pensions and Retirement § 39 et seq.
Employer’s liability for action of trustees or similar body administering employer’s pension plan. 54 ALR3d 189.
Affirmed.
R. M. Maher, J., dissented. He disagrees with the majority holding that the statute at issue clearly and unambiguously endows an investment fiduciary with the independent authority to retain private legal counsel and to pay for that counsel with the income of the investment system even where a provision of a city charter requires the investment fiduciary to follow other procedures to obtain counsel. He would hold that the Legislature, in enacting the statute, did not intend to set aside existing structures within individual retirement systems providing for the retention of legal counsel. Furthermore, while he agrees that there may be situations under which an existing charter provision might unfairly create a conflict of interest, he does not think that the practicalities of a particular situation should affect the interpretation of a statute for all situations. He would reverse the decision of the trial court.
Opinion of the Court
1. Statutes — Judicial Construction.
A statute which is clear and unambiguous on its face should be enforced as written.
2. Statutes — City Charters — Judicial Construction.
General statutory law takes precedence over a conflicting city charter provision in all matters which are not of purely local character.
3. Municipal Corporations — Public Employees — Retirement Systems — Retention of Independent Legal Counsel.
The boards of trustees of all public employee retirement systems have statutory authority to retain independent legal counsel when necessary and to pay for that counsel with the income of the investment system even where a provision of a city charter requires a board to follow other procedures to obtain counsel (MCL 38.1132 et seq.; MSA 3.981[112] et seq.).
Dissent by R. M. Maher, J.
4. Municipal Corporations — Public Employees — Retirement Systems — Investment Fiduciaries — Retention of Independent Legal Counsel.
Investment ñduciaries of public employee retirement systems are not clearly and unambiguously endowed by statute with inde pendent authority to retain private legal counsel and to pay for that counsel with the income of the investment system where a provision of a city charter requires the investment ñduciary to follow other procedures to obtain counsel (MCL 38.1133; MSA 3.981[113]).
Ronald Zajac, for plaintiffs.
Donald Pailen, Corporation Counsel, Mark R. Ulicny, Deputy Corporation Counsel, and Frank W. Jackson, Kenneth G. King, and Linda C. Rag-land, Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendants.
Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and R. M. Maher and Cynar, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendants appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on defendants' counterclaim.
On July 1, 1982, the City of Detroit failed to pay a $39,983,039.24 contribution to the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The city also failed timely to pay a $92,454,926.08 contribution in 1981 and a $14,600,000 contribution in 1980, to the retirement system. Plaintiff, the Board of Trustees of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit, retained independent legal counsel to pursue litigation to collect these sums. During the course of that litigation, the city counterclaimed arguing that the Board of Trustees for the Retirement System could not retain independent legal counsel but had to rely on the city's corporate counsel for legal advice. The city argues that since it was being sued, its corporation counsel would appoint the board of trustees' counsel. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the board of trustees, finding that it could retain indepen dent legal counsel to pursue its claims against the city.
The sole legal issue as presented by the trial court and by both parties is whether 1982 PA 55, MCL 38.1132 et seq.; MSA 3.981(112) et seq., authorized the boards of trustees of all public employee retirement systems to independently retain private legal counsel. Defendants argue that the statute does not grant the board of trustees the power to retain independent legal counsel and, therefore, the city's charter, Art 6, Ch 4, requires that the board be represented by the city's corporation counsel or other counsel appointed by corporation counsel.
We must first determine whether MCL 38.1133; MSA 3.981(113) is ambiguous. That statute in pertinent part states: "An investment fiduciary may use a portion of the income of the system to defray the costs of investing, managing and protecting the assets of the system; may retain investment and all other services necessary for the conduct of the affairs of this system; and may pay reasonable compensation for those services". We feel that the language of this statute is unambiguous on its face. Sneath v Popiolek, 135 Mich App 17; 352 NW2d 331 (1984). The statute clearly states that the investment fiduciary may retain services necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the system. This language is not ambiguous because it grants the investment fiduciary broad powers. We note that, under the more specific statute governing firemen and policemen pensions, a retirement board formed under that statute shall "[r]etain legal services as may be necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the retirement system and make compensations for the services retained". MCL 38.552(2); MSA 5.3375(2).
Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, it should be enforced as written. In re Chavez Estate, 127 Mich App 430; 339 NW2d 35 (1983). The issue before us then is whether independently retained legal service is necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The facts of the instant case clearly show that such independent legal service is necessary. The city has repeatedly failed timely to make large contributions to the retirement system. We feel that there would be an obvious conflict of interest if the city represented the retirement system or appointed counsel for the retirement system. Defendants should not be allowed to choose their own opposing counsel. Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 5 and DR 5-105, DR 5-107. The city may neglect its alleged duty to represent the retirement system, especially when the system is claiming that the city owes it millions of dollars. In fact, in defense of the underlying action, the city claimed that it had no legal obligation whatsoever to pay the contributions on the date they were due. Under these circumstances, we do not feel that the retirement system would be properly represented by the city's corporate counsel or by other counsel appointed by the corporate counsel. We believe that independent legal counsel was necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the system.
The city also relies on a provision of its charter which states that the city's corporate counsel must represent all of the city's administrative agencies. Where a city charter provision conflicts with general statutory law, the statute controls in all matters which are not of purely local character. Brimmer v Village of Elk Rapids, 365 Mich 6, 12-13; 112 NW2d 222 (1961). The statute and charter involved in the instant case conflict since the statute provides that plaintiff may choose its own legal counsel and the charter provides that defendants shall choose plaintiffs legal counsel. We are unable to find that the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System is strictly and exclusively a municipal concern. The procurement of legal counsel to represent the Board of Trustees of the Retirement System primarily concerns the city's policemen and firemen and not the general public. We note that MCL 38.1133; MSA 3.981(113), which states that the provisions of this act shall supersede any investment authority previously granted to a system under any other law of this state, further supports our position. We therefore feel that the lower court correctly ruled that the statute, MCL 38.1133; MSA 3.981(113), controls and that plaintiff may retain independent legal counsel when necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the system.
Affirmed.