Opinion ID: 842400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the availability of a remedy

Text: Moreover, the majority is incorrect in concluding that the only remedies available to plaintiff were to enjoin collection of the millages or to compel refund of the monies to the taxpayers. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals discussed whether any remedies or corresponding defenses were available. The question should be resolved first by the trial court on remand. However, I believe that equitable remedies are available, subject to any defense a defendant might have. As an initial matter, the majority concludes that, because the Legislature did not expressly provide for a private cause of action, plaintiff cannot seek restitution for a violation of MCL 224.20b. It supports this conclusion by citing MCL 224.30, which states: (1) If an audit or investigation conducted under this act discloses statutory violations on the part of an officer, employee, or board of a county road commission, a copy of the report shall be filed with the attorney general who shall review the report and cause to be instituted a proceeding against the officer, employee, or board as the attorney general deems necessary.    (3) The attorney general or the prosecuting attorney shall institute civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of public moneys disclosed by an examination to have been illegally expended or collected and not accounted for and for the recovery of public property disclosed to have been converted and misappropriated. However, not only is MCL 224.30 inapplicable to the instant case, it provides an inadequate remedy to a city in plaintiff's position. The procedure for an audit referred to in MCL 224.30(1) is set forth in MCL 224.26: Every county road commission in counties of more than 50,000 population shall have an annual audit of its financial records, accounts, and procedures, including those required by law governing the disposition of any state funding. MCL 224.26(1). [8] In this case, it is presumed that, in accordance with MCL 224.26, the county road commission had an audit performed every year or every other year since 1976. However, no audit or investigation revealed any statutory violations. Because there were no reported violations, there was no need for the Attorney General to institute proceedings under MCL 224.30. [9] Therefore, not only is MCL 224.30 inapplicable in the instant case, it provides an inadequate remedy to plaintiff, as shown by the fact that no investigation was ever commenced. The majority concludes that plaintiff's sole statutory remedy is through the Attorney General. It also concedes that plaintiff may enjoin collection of the improper millage or seek a refund of the collected taxes. See ante at 540-541. However, I believe that other remedies are available. For example, in its complaint, plaintiff asked for relief in the form of an order of mandamus. [10] The wrong for which plaintiff seeks a remedy is a statutory violation, and in the past our courts have granted mandamus relief for statutory violations. In City of Belding v. Maloney, Ionia Co. Treasurer , a statute required the county treasurer to apportion penal fines to libraries. City of Belding v. Maloney, Ionia Co. Treasurer, 360 Mich. 336, 343, 103 N.W.2d 621 (1960). This Court ordered the treasurer to comply with the statute. We recognized that [a] clear legal duty reposes on the county treasurer in this regard, and a clear legal right is plaintiff's to receive the apportionment from him. Id. at 344, 103 N.W.2d 621. The plaintiff's action was properly brought against the treasurer, and the treasurer was required by mandamus to apportion the funds as the statute required. Id. Similarly, in Grand Rapids Pub. Schools v. Grand Rapids, [11] the Court of Appeals recognized that, if required to do so by statute, the county treasurer had to properly distribute earned interest. The Court of Appeals noted that a city or county treasurer is a fiduciary in the management and application of public funds. Id. at 657, 381 N.W.2d 783. In this case, defendant county treasurer had a statutory duty to distribute the millage revenue as set forth in MCL 224.20b(2) because there was no agreement to the contrary. It is undisputed that the treasurer neglected to do so, distributing nothing to plaintiff. Hence, the treasurer violated her statutory duty, and, as a consequence, plaintiff was denied its statutory right to receive the funds. If the trial court were to determine that plaintiff is entitled to relief in this case, it could issue an order of mandamus. [12]