Court Opinion

ID: 9655439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:10:32.941622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:18.498099
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(dissenting). The majority holds only that the language of § 405(3) must be read literally; they do not hold that to do so would effectuate the intent of the Legislature as gleaned from § 405 as a whole. I must therefore conclude that my differences with the majority are grounded in our respective concepts concerning the role of the judiciary.
It is our function to interpret the Legislature’s work product, and to do so in such fashion as to effectuate the legislative intent. Statutory language need not, indeed should not, be read with wooden literalness if to do so would create an absurdity, or a result contrary to the obvious intent of its authors. I therefore adhere to the reasoning and result in Spears v Hazel Park, 131 Mich App 457; 346 NW2d 340 (1984). Accordingly, I would reverse.