Court Opinion

ID: 9963750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 05:06:21.963813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:58.422304
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                          STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

DAVID J. SZYMANSKI,                                                   UNPUBLISHED
                                                                      April 25, 2024
              Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                     No. 366882
                                                                      Wayne Circuit Court
COUNTY OF WAYNE and WARREN EVANS,                                     LC No. 21-017542-AW

              Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and JANSEN and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court order denying plaintiff summary disposition
under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, County of
Wayne and Warren Evans, Chief Executive Officer of Wayne County, under MCR 2.116(I)(2), in
this dispute regarding retiree benefits. We affirm.

                 I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       Plaintiff was elected to the Wayne County Probate Court in 1990; he began his term on
January 1, 1991. In 1993, the County adopted the “Amann Resolutions,” entitling county
employees who retire from specific positions serving the County for eight or more years to
postemployment healthcare. Wayne County Resolution 93-742 stated:

                2. If a person is separated from the County after January 1, 1994, with at
       least a total of eight years of county service, who at the time of separation is serving
       as an elected executive officer of the County, . . . or as an appointed department
       head or deputy department head, . . . that person shall upon attaining age 45, be
       entitled to the same insurance and health care benefits for himself or herself, his or
       her spouse and dependents, as a retiree from the Defined Benefit Plan 1.

 Resolution 93-742 was amended by Wayne County Resolution 94-903 in 1994, maintaining the
eight-year county-service requirement.

                                                 -1-
        In December 2010, plaintiff retired as a probate court judge and accepted the position of
Wayne County Chief Deputy treasurer because he was told by Tim Wilson, Wayne County
Director of Human Resources (HR), that his years as a probate court judge would count toward
the eight-year county-service requirement for Amann eligibility if he was appointed to a qualifying
position. The Amann Resolution was again amended in 2011, ending benefits for qualifying
employees who began their service after October 1, 2011, citing a budget crisis in Wayne County.
Wayne County Resolution 2011-512. Taylor confirmed that plaintiff and his dependents would
receive healthcare whenever he retired in a January 25, 2011 e-mail.

         During the summer of 2015, a meeting was held at the Treasurer’s office with Ken
Wilson, another County HR employee. Plaintiff asserted that Wilson said that employees retiring
in September 2015 would be entitled to benefits, and he could not speak to those entitled to Amann
benefits, but opined it would be the same as employees subject to a collective-bargaining
agreement (CBA). Plaintiff allegedly asked Wilson if he retired in September 2015 would his
benefits vest, but if he stayed through October he would lose them, and Wilson said that was the
likely outcome.1 Plaintiff tried to contact the HR department for further clarification through the
end of the summer, but got no response. When he requested retirement information, he was given
a calculation sheet dated August 22, 2015, indicating he had 25 years and eight months eligible
time for “Benefit Service,” “Eligibility Service,” and “Vesting Service,” and was eligible for life
and health insurance benefits. Thus, plaintiff retired in September 2015.

        Plaintiff asserts he received Amann healthcare benefits from the date of his retirement
through December 2015, as he was notified in November 2015 that his benefits would be
terminating January 1, 2016. In February 2018, plaintiff contacted the County HR department
inquiring about his benefits as he was contemplating leaving his current job with the Detroit Land
Bank. Zenna Elhasan, Wayne County Corporate Counsel, responded on March 12, 2018,
clarifying that when plaintiff retired as Chief Deputy Treasurer he was given a stipend for
healthcare under the Executive Benefit Plan, and now that he was leaving his other employment
he wanted to resume receiving the stipend. Elhasan made clear that plaintiff was not eligible for
Amann now, nor was he when he retired in 2015, because he did not meet the years-of-service
requirement. Amann benefits were reinstated in June 2018 to some employees other than plaintiff.

       Thus, plaintiff filed suit in December 2021, seeking a writ of mandamus and costs and fees,
and making claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. After defendants answered the
complaint denying liability, plaintiff moved for summary disposition of his promissory estoppel
claim only under MCR 2.116(C)(D). He argued that he was promised healthcare in retirement by

1
  Plaintiff e-mailed Wilson in July 2015 to confirm this promise, to which Wilson responded, “I
can only speak for those retiring under [CBAs] and cannot speak whatsoever for those potentially
receiving retiree health care from other sources such as the Executive or Legislative Benefit Plans
or under the Amann Resolution.” In December 2015, Wilson was directed by HR to respond to
an e-mail written by plaintiff indicating Wilson said plaintiff was eligible for Amann if he retired
before September 30, 2015. Wilson said, “this is not the case,” and that plaintiff’s previous e-mail
acknowledged Wilson was only referring to union employees, quoting the above statement from
his first e-mail.

                                                -2-
County representatives, he reasonably relied on those promises in making career choices, and was
ultimately denied the benefits, so the elements of promissory estoppel were met and he was entitled
to summary disposition. Defendants responded and moved for judgment as a matter of law under
MCR 2.116(I)(2), asserting that plaintiff failed to qualify for the Amann benefits because he did
not meet the eight-year county-service requirement. He only served approximately five years in
the treasurer position plus a period of employment in the 1970s, and his tenure as probate court
judge did not count because probate court judges are state employees, not county employees.

       The trial court agreed with defendants, and concluded that plaintiff lacked the requisite
years of service for Amann benefits because the service earned as a probate court judge did not
apply because it was state employment. The court denied plaintiff summary disposition, and
granted defendants summary disposition. Plaintiff now appeals.

                                 II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

        This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Glasker-Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222, 229; 964 NW2d 809 (2020). Plaintiff moved for
summary disposition of his promissory estoppel claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10). “A trial court
may grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when the affidavits or other
documentary evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

       If the moving party properly supports his or her motion, the burden shifts to the
       nonmoving party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. A genuine
       issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt
       to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might
       differ. Where the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue rests on a
       nonmoving party, the nonmoving party may not rely on mere allegations or denials
       in pleadings, but must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing
       that a genuine issue of material fact exists. If the opposing party fails to present
       documentary evidence establishing the existence of a material factual dispute, the
       motion is properly granted. Our review is limited to the evidence that had been
       presented to the circuit court at the time the motion was decided. [In re
       Guardianship of Malloy, 343 Mich App 548, 558-559; 997 NW2d 733 (2022)
       (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

In their response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants asserted they were entitled to summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2). “If it appears to the court that the opposing party, rather than
the moving party, is entitled to judgment, the court may render judgment in favor of the opposing
party.” MCR 2.116(I)(2). This case also includes questions of statutory interpretation,
construction, and application, which are also reviewed de novo. Johnson v Johnson, 329 Mich
App 110, 118; 940 NW2d 807 (2019).

                                                -3-
                                   III. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

        The trial court properly denied plaintiff summary disposition and properly granted
defendants summary disposition because there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff
did not meet the requirements to receive retiree healthcare benefits under the plain language of the
Amann Resolution, and as such, plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim fails.

        The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are “(1) a promise, (2) that the promisor
should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part
of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in
circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided.” Cove Creek
Condo Ass’n v Vistal Land & Home Dev, LLC, 330 Mich App 679, 713; 950 NW2d 502 (2019)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). The promise giving rise to an actionable claim must be
clear and definite. Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc, 327 Mich App 203, 227; 933 NW2d 363
(2019). “To determine whether a promise existed, courts must objectively evaluate the
circumstances of the transaction, including the parties’ words, actions and relationship.” Id.
Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of promissory estoppel must be cautiously applied only where the facts
are unquestionable and the wrong to be prevented undoubted.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted).

        Plaintiff alleged that defendants promised he would be entitled to healthcare benefits under
the Amann Resolution in retirement, that defendants should have reasonably expected this promise
to induce action on plaintiff’s part regarding his career choices, and that plaintiff did in fact rely
on this promise when he retired from his treasurer position, and the injustice to be avoided is
plaintiff having to pay for his own health care out-of-pocket. Plaintiff’s claim for promissory
estoppel, however, depends on his eligibility for those benefits under the Amann Resolution.
Although the Resolution has been amended, it specifically maintained the requirement that the
individual has “at least a total of eight years of county service” to be eligible for retirement benefits.
See Wayne County Resolutions 93-742, 94-903, 2011-512.

      The rules governing statutory interpretation are applied to a municipal ordinance. Detroit
Media Group, LLC v Detroit Bd of Zoning Appeals, 339 Mich App 38, 50; 981 NW2d 88 (2021).

                When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the intent
        of the Legislature. If the language of a statute is unambiguous, we presume the
        Legislature intended the meaning expressed in the statute. A statutory provision is
        ambiguous only if it conflicts irreconcilably with another provision or it is equally
        susceptible to more than one meaning . . . . When construing a statute, we must
        assign every word or phrase its plain and ordinary meaning unless the Legislature
        has provided specific definitions or has used technical terms that have acquired a
        peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law.

                 Similarly, the goal of construction and interpretation of an ordinance is to
        discern and give effect to the intent of the legislative body. The most reliable
        evidence of that intent is the language of the ordinance itself, which must be given
        its plain and ordinary meaning. When the words used in a statute or an ordinance

                                                   -4-
       are clear and unambiguous, they express the intent of the legislative body and must
       be enforced as written. [Id. at 51 (quotation marks and citation omitted).]

        Plaintiff previously filed suit against the same defendants in federal district court under 42
USC 1983, alleging defendants denied him the same Amann healthcare benefits he seeks in this
case. See Szymanski v Evans, 438 F Supp 3d 790, 791 (ED Mich, 2020). The specific issue before
the court was whether plaintiff’s years of service on the probate court could be considered in
determining whether he was eligible for the Amann benefits. Id. Plaintiff made the same
allegations regarding promises made by Taylor and Wilson, and relied on his paychecks issued by
Wayne County. Id. at 792. However, the court concluded that “[u]nfortunately for the position
advocated by Plaintiff, there is caselaw from the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of
[A]ppeals establishing that Wayne County probate judges are not County employees and therefore
that Plaintiff does not have the eight years of ‘County service’ required to receive benefits under
Resolution 2011-512.” Id. at 794. These cases are Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v State, 459 Mich
291, 294; 586 NW2d 894 (1998) (striking down legislation that designated probate court
employees as employees of the local county), and Mullen v Wayne Co, unpublished per curiam
opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 23, 2014 (Docket No. 316792); slip op at 4
(holding that the eight-year county-service requirement unambiguous). The court concluded that
the fact that Wayne County handled payroll and benefits for the probate court did not render
plaintiff an employee of Wayne County. Szymanski, 438 F Supp 3d at 796. In dicta, the court
stated:

               The Court is likewise unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s contractual-estoppel
       argument that the County must provide him post-employment coverage because it
       previously told him he was entitled to such benefits. As an initial matter, Plaintiff
       does not assert a claim for promissory estoppel in his Complaint and cannot now
       raise that claim in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Even were he
       permitted to raise such a claim outside of his pleading, Plaintiff has not alleged facts
       asserting that he in fact relied on Defendants’ alleged promise that he was entitled
       to Amann benefits such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be
       avoided. Accordingly, he fails to plead a required element of promissory estoppel.
       If Plaintiff is attempting to make defensive use of principles of estoppel rather than
       to assert a new claim for promissory estoppel, he has not provided legal support
       that convinces the Court he is permitted to do so in this context. [Id. at 796-797
       (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

Ultimately, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiff’s claims
without prejudice, id. at 797, and plaintiff filed this suit in circuit court. Although this federal
decision is not binding on this Court, it may be considered for its persuasive value. Haydaw v
Farm Bureau Ins Co, 332 Mich App 719, 726 & n 5; 957 NW2d 858 (2020).

      The district court in Szymanski relied on Mullen, an unpublished opinion of this Court from
2014. Mullen, unpub op at 1. Turkia Mullen2 worked for Wayne County from September 2003

2
 Defendants assert that Mullen’s last name was actually spelled “Mullin;” the spelling used in this
Court’s opinion will be used herein.

                                                 -5-
to September 2011 as a department director, then took employment with the Wayne County
Airport Authority. Id. When that employment ended, she sought benefits under the Amann
Resolution, which the County denied because she did not meet the years of county-service
requirement. Id. The County calculated her eligible service at seven years, 11 months, and 26
days. Id. at 2. She filed suit for damages and declaratory relief, and the trial court granted the
County summary disposition. Id. at 1. This Court affirmed, determining that plaintiff did not meet
the requirements. Id. at 3-5.

        Relevant to the appeal at issue, the Mullen Court determined that the phrase “eight years
of County service” in the Amann Resolution (referring to Resolution 94-903, which was in effect
at that time) was unambiguous, no construction was necessary or permitted, and it must be
enforced as written. Id. at 4. “As the trial court held, . . . the term ‘County’ clearly refers to Wayne
County; and the term ‘service’ plainly refers to employment with the County. Thus, to be eligible
for benefits under Resolution 94-903, a person must have been employed by the County for at least
eight years at the time of separation from County employment.” Id. This Court also held that
Mullen’s employment with the Airport Authority did not count as “county service” because the
Airport Authority was a separate entity from the County. Id. Thus, this Court concluded that
Mullen was not entitled to Amann benefits and affirmed summary disposition in the County’s
favor. Id. at 5.3

        We discern no reason to depart from the reasoning and statutory interpretation provided in
Mullen. Although as an unpublished opinion it is not binding authority on this Court, MCR
7.215(C)(1), it may still be considered as persuasive or instructive. Haydaw, 332 Mich App at 726
n 5. In Mullen, this Court held that the term “eight years of County Service” in the Amann
Resolution was unambiguous, and plainly required eight years of county employment to be
eligible. Mullen, unpub op at 4. The same language of the eight-year county-service requirement
is present in the current version of the Resolution. Wayne County Resolution 2011-512. Plaintiff
only had approximately five years of county service from his position as Chief Deputy Treasurer
and his county employment in the 1970s. His 19-year tenure as a probate court judge does not
qualify as “county service” under the Amann Resolution because probate court judges are state
employees. See MCL 600.837(2) (“In a county that is not part of a probate district, the county is
the employer of the county-paid employees of the probate court in that county.), MCL 600.837(12)
(“As used in this section, ‘county-paid employees of the probate court’ means persons employed
in the probate court in a county who receive any compensation as a direct result of an annual
budget appropriation approved by the county board of commissioners of that county, but does not
include a judge of the probate court.”) (emphasis added); see also Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459
Mich at 294.

        Thus, it is clear that plaintiff does not meet the eligibility requirements to receive Amann
benefits in retirement. As a result, there is no genuine issue of material fact that his claim for
promissory estoppel fails as defendants could not promise plaintiff he would receive benefits that
he was not legally entitled to under the plain language of the Resolution. Therefore, the trial court

3
 Judge Jansen filed a concurring opinion in Mullen, concurring in the result only. Id. (JANSEN, J.,
concurring).

                                                  -6-
properly denied plaintiff summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and summary disposition
in favor of defendants under MCR 2.116(I)(2) was proper.

       Affirmed.

                                                        /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
                                                        /s/ Kathleen Jansen

                                            -7-