Court Opinion

ID: 9720896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:44:15.038326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:22.075699
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I agree with most of the well written opinion of the majority. I disagree only with regard to the cases of Mr. Hall, Mr. Gruebener, and Ms. Trombley. I do not find that the evidence supports their claims of estoppel against the city.
Each of these three people completed and signed an application form which included the following certification:
"14. CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT. Read carefully before signing.
"J certify that all statements made on both sides of this application are true. I understand that any omission or misstatement of material facts will cause forfeiture of my rights to employment by the City of Mt. Clemens. I also understand that if appointed I must establish residence inside the city limits of Mt. Clemens within six months and remain a resident as long as I am employed by the City. ”
The reverse side of the application contained the following question:
"8. PERSONAL INFORMATION
"If appointed will you be able to maintain residence within the City?.....Yes-No-”. *23Mr. Hall and Ms. Trombley marked the Yes blank; Mr. Gruebener skipped the question.
The mere fact that someone told them the residency requirement was not being enforced changes neither the plain language of the applications nor these plaintiffs’ representations on the applications. People cannot simply agree to ignore or violate a proper city rule and thereby establish immunity from the rule. The city should not be estopped from enforcing its residency requirement against these plaintiffs.
However, due to the city’s previous lackadaisical enforcement policy, and in light of the time spent in hearings and on appeal, I would give the plaintiffs who must comply with the residency requirement six months from the date this opinion is released to move into the city.