Court Opinion

ID: 9581161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:12:08.268818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:45.015619
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I dissent.
The three justices joining in dissent on the question of attorney fees in Kestenbaum v Michi*675gan State University, 414 Mich 510, 563-564; 327 NW2d 783 (1982), were not faced with the setting in the instant case, where a public body was prohibited by court order from disclosing a public record.
The only ground for awarding attorney fees in the instant case is MCL 15.240(4); MSA 4.1801(10)(4). That section allows attorney fees to a person who prevails in an action commenced pursuant to the section. That section, however, allows for an action to compel disclosure of a public record only "[i]f a public body makes a final determination to deny a request or a portion thereof’. MCL 15.240(1); MSA 4.1801(10X1). Here, the Michigan Department of Civil Service did not make a final determination to deny plaintiffs’ request. A court injunction precluded the department from making any determination at all. It would be outrageous to require the department to pay attorney fees when it was at all times willing to release the information in question but was prevented from doing so by court order.
I would affirm.