Title: Feaster v. Portage Public Schools
Citation: 451 Mich. 351, 547 N.W.2d 328
Docket Number: 103255
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1996

547 N.W.2d 328 (1996)
451 Mich. 351
Phillip Murray FEASTER and Deonte Lamar Carpenter, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PORTAGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 103255.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
May 14, 1996.
*329 Richard Kupferschmidt, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff.
Miller, Johnson, Snell &amp; Cummiskey, P.L.C. by Nancy S. Rubino and John G. Manske, Kalamazoo, for defendant.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Paul J. Zimmer, Assistant Attorney General, Education Division, Lansing, for State Board of Education and Attorney General.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant school district refused to continue the enrollment of a young man living with his uncle, within the boundaries of the district. The district took the position that the student was not a resident of the district. An action was filed on behalf of the student, but the circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of the school district. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case concerns a South Carolina resident named Angella Carpenter, her son Deonte Carpenter (born March 6, 1979),[1] and Ms. Carpenter's brother, Phillip M. Feaster, who lives in Portage, Michigan.
On January 6, 1993, Ms. Carpenter executed a "power of attorney" so that Deonte could live with Mr. Feaster in Portage. The power of attorney provided:
Mr. Feaster then enrolled Deonte in the Portage Public Schools pursuant to M.C.L. § 380.1148; M.S.A. § 15.41148, which provides:
Except as provided in [M.C.L. § 380.1711; M.S.A. § 15.41711], a child placed under the order or direction of a court or child placing agency in a licensed home, or a child whose parents or legal *330 guardians are unable to provide a home for the child and who is placed in a licensed home or in a home of relatives in the school district for the purpose of securing a suitable home for the child and not for an educational purpose, shall be considered a resident for education purposes of the school district where the home in which the child is living is located. The child shall be admitted to the school in the district.
Despite the terms of the statute, which provide that "[t]he child shall be admitted to the school in the district" when placed with relatives for the purpose of securing a more suitable home, the Portage school district's residency requirement (policy 5118) mandates that a guardianship be established to guarantee continuing eligibility for enrollment. District policy 5118(4) provided that a student was eligible for residency under these circumstances:
In light of its policy, the district wrote to Mr. Feaster on January 11 and March 11, 1993, indicating that Deonte "will be dropped from school" if guardianship proceedings were not soon under way. Mr. Feaster chose to rely on the power of attorney, and the district took the threatened step later in March 1993.[2]
Mr. Feaster then filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in circuit court.[3] In the complaint, Mr. Feaster alleged that policy 5118(4) was contrary to law and was unconstitutional.
The school district filed a motion for summary disposition, which the circuit court granted.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 210 Mich.App. 643, 534 N.W.2d 242 (1995). Judge GRIFFIN dissented.
Mr. Feaster has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.[4]
In the Court of Appeals, the majority rejected Mr. Feaster's claim that district policy 5118(4) is inconsistent with M.C.L. § 380.1148; M.S.A. § 15.41148. The majority stated:
Because defendant's policy no. 5118(4) is merely an attempt by defendant to determine students' residency pursuant to M.C.L. § 380.1148; MSA 15.41148, we find that the trial court properly found defendant to have acted within its statutory *331 grant of powers in promulgating this policy. See Snyder v. Charlotte Public School Dist., 421 Mich. 517, 528-529, 365 N.W.2d 151 (1984). [210 Mich.App at 649, 534 N.W.2d 242.]
The remainder of the majority opinion was devoted to an explanation of its conclusion that policy 5118(4) was not unconstitutional.
Writing in dissent, Judge GRIFFIN found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional questions. Rather, he concluded that the policy violated M.C.L. § 380.1148; M.S.A. § 15.41148. After quoting the statute, Judge GRIFFIN continued:
We agree with this portion of Judge GRIFFIN's dissent, and we adopt the analysis as our own. We acknowledge the school district's defense of policy 5118 as merely a verification mechanism intended to ensure conformance to the residency requirements of the School Code. However, the actual effect of policy 5118 is to impose restrictions not mandated by the School Code in the absence of any authority to do so. Therefore, policy 5118 is invalid and cannot be enforced.
For these reasons, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, and we remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
BRICKLEY, C.J., and LEVIN, MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, BOYLE, RILEY, MALLETT, and WEAVER, JJ., concur.
[1]  Deonte Carpenter's name is spelled inconsistently in the record. Like the Court of Appeals, we are using the spelling supplied by his mother.
[2]  We are told that, by agreement of the parties, Deonte was permitted to finish the 1992-1993 school year in the Portage Public Schools.
[3]  Mr. Feaster sued in his own name, and on behalf of Deonte.
[4]  In addition, the State Board of Education and the Attorney General moved for leave to appear as amici curiae. We grant the motion.