Court Opinion

ID: 9741781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:02:06.649643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:58:07.133707
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, J.
Our brother, Judge Bronson, clearly sets out the facts of the instant case in his dissent. The plaintiffs’ standing to raise their allegations of fraud in the court below must be upheld. It is clear that there is no authority directly on point in this matter and our disagreement with the dissent on this issue is merely a disagreement regarding the extent of irregularity implied in the plaintiffs’ allegations. The dissent is certainly correct when it notes that the treasurers’ statutory duties with regard to the collection of drain assessments are merely ministerial. MCL 211.43; MSA 7.84. In addition, the treasurers are indemnified by the county against any action arising out of irregularity in the collection of drain taxes. MCL 280.265; MSA 11.1265.
The line of cases including The County Treasurer of Berrien v Bunbury, 45 Mich 79; 7 NW 704 (1881), Scholtz v Smith, 119 Mich 634; 78 NW 668 (1899), and Mayor of City of Dearborn v Dearborn Retirement Board of Trustees, 315 Mich 18; 23 NW2d 186 (1946), does suggest that the treasurers’ standing in this case may not be "commensurate *667with their public trusts and duties”. Nevertheless, we hold that careful attention must be accorded the plaintiffs’ allegations of fraudulent conduct, thereby placing greater emphasis and a broader interpretation upon the phrase "public trust” as used in Bunbury, Scholtz, and Dearborn Retirement Board, supra. Nothing in these cases dictates that standing shall only lie to fulfill "discretionary” duties of public officers and we hold that "public trust” includes the treasurers’ duties as fiduciaries in the management and application of funds. 62 CJS, Municipal Corporations, § 697, pp 1392-1395.
The treasurers-plaintiffs’ complaint basically alleges that defendant Wayne County Drain Commission has fraudulently utilized tax funds which are statutorily earmarked for drain construction work to cover administrative expenses; by statute, such administrative expenses should come from the defendant county’s general fund. MCL 280.196; MSA 11.1196. This statute permits the county drain commissioner to assess landowners benefit-ted by drain maintenance and repair costs up to $800 per mile, without petition, provided the repairs have been performed within the previous two years.
The plaintiffs-treasurers’ complaint alleged that the work for which the contested taxes were assessed was not performed within the last two years; that the assessments exceeded the statutory maximum and were not proportioned properly; that proper notice was not given; and finally, that the special assessments were not being used to reimburse the Drain Revolving Fund at all, but rather were used to cover administrative expenses. In Drain Commissioner of the County of Huron v Supervisor of the Twp of Chandler, 90 Mich 278, *668279; 51 NW 282 (1892), the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a township supervisor to assess a drain tax. According to the Court: "The proceedings being so defective that no legal drain could be laid out, the supervisor was not in the wrong in refusing to assess the tax.” Similarly, such a writ was denied in The Board of Supervisors of Cheboygan County v The Supervisor of the Twp of Mentor, 94 Mich 386, 388; 54 NW 169 (1892), on the grounds that it:
"[CJannot be invoked to accomplish a confessedly illegal purpose, even though the officer against whom it is invoked is charged with an express duty under the statute.
"The circumstances must be exceptionally extraordinary which will justify a supervisor in refusing to comply with his statutory duty, but we think the respondents in this case were justified in so doing.”
It is settled law in Michigan that a motion to dismiss should not be granted where the plaintiffs standing to sue is based upon a disputed question of fact. Watts Construction Co v Joint Clutch & Gear Service, Inc, 325 Mich 548; 38 NW2d 919 (1949). This continues to be the law under GCR 1963, 116, when such a dismissal is denominated an accelerated judgment, since Rule 116 was not intended to be a "radical departure from past practice”. 1 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 336.
In the instant case such "exceptionally extraordinary” circumstances as required by the Supreme Court in Huron County Drain Commissioner and Cheboygan County Supervisors are alleged and this Court will not deny the plaintiffs-treasurers’ standing to seek relief, even affirmative relief, *669without a full evidentiary trial. In much the same manner, the individual taxpayers’ standing in the instant case depends upon whether they can establish extraordinary circumstances indicating the existence of fraudulent conduct on the part of the county drain commission. The Supreme Court cases of Twp of Norton v Cockerill, 265 Mich 405; 251 NW 543 (1933), and Brooks v County of Oakland, 268 Mich 637; 256 NW 576 (1934), clearly indicate that mere allegations of illegality will not suffice to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Neither of these opinions had occasion to consider the impact of allegations of fraudulent conduct.
Under MCL 600.5855; MSA 27A.5855, the taxpayers’ complaint in the instant suit alleged fraud and fraudulent concealment, which, if proven, would exempt the plaintiffs-taxpayers from the 30-day statute of limitations under MCL 280.265; MSA 11.1265. Whether or not MCL 600.5855 applies to save the individual plaintiffs’ actions in the instant case depends upon whether plaintiffs sustain their allegations of fraud at trial. If they should carry the burden of demonstrating fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs’ action is timely. If the plaintiffs fail to show fraud on the part of the defendants, their action must be dismissed as not timely under MCL 280.265. Such a determination is clearly a decision of fact which should await a full trial on the merits. Cf. Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199; 192 NW2d 319 (1971).
We note that since the Tax Tribunal has not been given general equitable powers, it is appropriate that this matter be decided in circuit court. Despite the Tax Tribunal’s purported exclusive jurisdiction, MCL 205.701, et seq.; MSA 7.650(1), et *670seq., where relief is sought which only a court of general equitable jurisdiction can provide, the action may properly be brought before such court.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
N. J. Kaufman, P.J., concurred.