Opinion ID: 2002270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: having an interest in a business which held a michigan liquor license in direct contravention of statute

Text: Upon de novo review of this matter, we find that the respondent held, directly or indirectly, an interest in a liquor license in direct contravention of MCL 436.18; MSA 18.989. Respondent has thus violated GCR 1963, 932.4. [8] MCL 436.18; MSA 18.989 [9] provided as follows: No person who holds or whose spouse holds, either by appointment or election, any public office which involves the duty to enforce any of the penal laws of the United States of America, or the penal laws of the state, or any penal ordinance or resolution of any municipal subdivision of the state, except civil defense volunteer policemen, shall be issued any license, nor shall such a person have any interest, directly or indirectly, in any such license. Respondent violated this statute in that he held an interest directly or indirectly in a liquor license. This allegation is supported by the evidence outlined as follows. First, respondent was a shareholder and director of Groveland Valley Development Corporation which had as its primary objective the development of real estate, including a golf course. A separate corporation was organized, Groveland Valley Country Club, to facilitate the development of the golf course and country club. However, for all intents and purposes, Groveland Valley Development Corporation maintained all control, and the entities were one and the same. Second, when the corporations were contemplating the acquisition of a liquor license, they realized the difficulty of a public official having an interest in the liquor license. Thus, before the Liquor Control Commission approved the transfer of a resort-type liquor license to Groveland Valley Country Club, respondent purported to sell his interest to his mother in 1973. [10] In actuality, however, respondent did not completely alienate his interest, but instead maintained an active interest in the corporation as illustrated by a letter circulated on July 9, 1975, stating that respondent intended to exercise his pre-emptive rights, as well as by his frequent attendance at board meetings. Third, upon dissolution of Groveland Valley Development Corporation, the assets were held successively by two different partnerships, with respondent as one of the partners. Respondent was a partner involved in the subsequent sale of the real estate and liquor license and was listed as having a share in the profits and financial investments of the business. His name appeared on the assignment of the liquor license to the purchasers. Thus, the evidence clearly supports a violation by respondent of MCL 436.18(1); MSA 18.989(1) which precludes a public official from maintaining a direct or indirect interest in a liquor license. This certainly is misconduct in office.