Court Opinion

ID: 9708074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:29:22.906746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:44.197058
License: Public Domain

Targonski, J.
(dissenting). For purposes of this dissent I accept the majority’s statement of facts with some modification. It is important to note that the resolution limiting the accumulation of overtime recognized the existence and the validity of the already accumulated overtime. Vouchers were given certifying the portion remaining unused. It is vital to the disposition of this case to recognize that, while the resolution provided for compensatory time off, this time could be liquidated only with the concurrence of the city manager. There were occasions where he refused to consent to the liquidation of overtime. As a consequence, the plaintiff in this cause was precluded from liquidating his overtime by way of compensatory time off prior to his forced retirement under the terms of the retirement program which the city has for its employees. Application for extension was denied.
Further, there was testimony that indicated that some employees, in the same category as the plaintiff, had been paid for their compensatory time in excess of 80 hours in order to reduce their accumu*541lated compensatory hours to 80. These payments and adjustments were made shortly after the new ordinance was passed. Also, we deem it significant that upon the plaintiffs retirement the city did pay him for 80 hours of the overtime although the resolution and applicable ordinances are silent on any authority for payment for any overtime. It is significant that in its past dealings with its employees, the city has recognized that overtime may be paid for in money. There is no valid reason shown why a limit of 80 hours must be placed on this payment. An acceptance of services implies a promise to pay therefor at the established rate. Detroit v Highland Park, 326 Mich 78, 99 (1949). The city cannot retain the benefits of the plaintiffs services without compensation therefor. DiPonio v Garden City, 320 Mich 230, 239 (1948).
There was no specific contract to pay money for services rendered by way of overtime. However, from all of the attendant facts, we believe a contract must be implied between these parties. To do otherwise would be to change the contract of employment. That such a change cannot be made unilaterally is set forth in 43 Am Jur Public Officers, §348, pp 140-141, which provides as follows:
"But' after services have been rendered by a public officer under a law, resolution, or ordinance which fixes the rate of compensation, there arises an implied contract to pay for those services at that rate. There is in such case a completed contract the obligation of which is perfect and rests on the remedies the law gives for its enforcement. This obligation cannot be impaired by any act of the legislature or other body changing the compensation of the office.”
43 Am Jur, Public Officers, § 348, cited above, based on all of the facts of this case, in my opinion *542establishes the existence of an implied contract in this case. The law of implied contracts in Michigan was summarized in Moll v Wayne County, 332 Mich 274, 278-279 (1952), as follows:
" 'There are 2 kinds of implied contracts: one implied in fact, and the other implied in law. The ñrst does not exist unless the minds of the parties meet, by reason of words or conduct. The second is quasi or constructive, and does not require a meeting of minds, but is imposed. by fiction of law, to enable justice to be accomplished, even in case no contract was intended.
" 'In order to afford the remedy demanded by exact justice and adjust such remedy to a cause of action, the law sometimes indulges in the fiction of a quasi or constructive contract, with an implied obligation to pay for benefits received. The courts, however, employ the fiction with caution, and will never permit it in cases where contracts, implied in fact, must be established, or substitute one promissor or debtor for another.’ Cascaden v Magryta, 247 Mich 267 [270 (1929)], quoted with approval in Detroit v Highland Park, 326 Mich 78 [100 (1944)].
" 'A contract implied in law is quasi or constructive, and does not require a meeting of minds, but is imposed by fiction of law to enable justice to be accomplished, even where no contract was intended.
" 'The essential elements of a quasi contractual obligation, upon which a recovery may be had, are the receipt of a benefit by a defendant from a plaintiff, which beneñt it is inequitable that the defendant retain. ’ Herrmann v Gleason 126 F2d 936 [939, 940 (CA 6, 1942)].” (Emphasis in original.)
Plaintiff here rendered valuable services to the defendant which services were accepted by the defendant. What the plaintiff may have thought as to his right to compensation for accumulated compensatory hours is irrelevant and immaterial. What is important is the action of the defendant *543city itself. The important point specifically is the fact that the defendant city decreased some of the Group 2 employees’ accumulation to 80 hours and paid them for the amount decreased shortly after the adoption of the ordinance in question. This action was in addition to the actions set forth hereinabove with reference to this plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in his group classification.
There is no question based on the record, and such fact is not contested by thé defendant city, that the plaintiff at the time of his retirement was not compensated for 866-1/2 hours credited to his compensatory overtime account. Based on his final salary, a debt of $5,540.63 was due and owing to the plaintiff. This matter should be remanded to the circuit court for entry of a judgment in that amount plus interest from date of retirement to date of payment. As a matter of public policy, the good faith of government in its treatment of its contractual obligations should never be less sacred than that of individuals. Webb v Wakefield Twp, 239 Mich 521, 527 (1927). I would therefore reverse and remand.