Object Type: Folder
In Folder: Michigan Attorney General, Opinions, Biennial Reports and Indexes, 1963-2022
Public Act 314 of 2012, which amended the Building Officials and Inspectors Registration Act, MCL 338.2301 et seq., requires the State Construction Code Commission to waive fees for building officials, plan reviewers, and inspectors, including building inspectors, who are honorably discharged veterans.
A precious metal and gem dealer licensed under the Precious Metal and Gem Dealers Act, 1981 PA 95, MCL 445.481 et seq., cannot receive or purchase a precious item by mail from the public, or where the customer otherwise fails to appear in person before the dealer to present the customer’s driver’s license or state personal identification card, and provide a thumbprint and signature, to be recorded by the dealer as required by the Act. MCL 445.484(1).
Because MCL 211.78g(5) of the General Property Tax Act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.1 et seq., creates a lien for the amount of taxes paid to redeem forfeited property only where the redeeming party already holds an “existing lien, title, or interest,” a stranger to title cannot acquire any interest in forfeited property by paying forfeited delinquent property taxes.
Subsection 6(5), MCL 445.426(5), of the Scrap Metal Regulatory Act, MCL 445.421 et seq., requiring payment by mail applies to purchase transactions with a seller whose collective sales for a business day total $25.00 or more, whether or not any of the specific items identified in subsection 6(1), MCL 445.426(1), are involved in the purchase transactions.
A county road commission cannot refuse to issue a permit to a person hauling agricultural commodities under MCL 257.722(5) of the Michigan Vehicle Code on the basis that the hauler has not agreed to additional conditions requested by the county road commission but not expressly required by subsections 722(5)(a)-(c). A county road commission cannot charge a person requesting a permit under MCL 257.722(5) of the Michigan Vehicle Code a fee in excess of the administrative costs the county road commission incurred to issue the permit.
A financing agreement in which the borrower agrees to repay the principal with interest and a percentage of future revenues or profits will not violate usury laws so long as the lender’s profit is contingent, and the parties contract in good faith and without the intent to avoid usury laws. Whether a particular financing agreement is lawful will depend on the true nature of the agreement as determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement.
Subsection 6107(1) of the Insurance Code (Code), MCL 500.6107(1), authorizes the Automobile Theft Prevention Authority to assess fees on all motor vehicles insured under MCL 500.3101 of the Code, not just private passenger vehicles.
The Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1501 et seq., as amended by 2012 PA 103, expressly requires that a building official be employed by the governmental subdivision for which the building official is administering and enforcing the State Construction Code. MCL 125.1502a(1)(i). The test to be applied in determining whether a building official is an employee of the governmental subdivision is the economic realities test. The Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act, MCL 125.1501 et seq., as amended by 2012 PA 103, which requires that a building official be employed by the governmental subdivision for which building official is administering and enforcing the State Construction Code, also expressly permits the building official to be employed with a private organization that assists governmental subdivisions with State Construction Code administration and enforcement. MCL 125.1502a(1)(i). However, contracts and business transactions involving the building official, the governmental subdivision, and the private organization are subject to applicable conflict of interest provisions. MCL 125.1509(2).
Part 401 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1995 PA 57, MCL 324.40101 et seq., preempts a local ordinance that prohibits the taking of wild birds because the ordinance directly conflicts with state law by prohibiting what state law and regulations permit, and because the field of wild animal regulation is fully occupied by state law.
Without a vote of the county’s electorate, a general law county may not levy pre-Headlee taxes as authorized by Const 1963, art 9, § 31 in excess of (1) the 15-mill limitation as allocated annually by the county tax allocation board under Const 1963, art 9, § 6, or (2) its specific share of the 18-mill limitation as fixed by the county voters under art 9, § 6.
The audit of a local assessing district’s assessment roll on behalf of the State Tax Commission (STC) under MCL 211.10f(1) of the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq., is not subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) MCL 15.261 et seq. However, the STC, as a public body, is subject to the OMA when it deliberates or decides to assume jurisdiction over a local assessing district’s assessment roll under MCL 211.10f(1).
Neither the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3801 et seq., nor the General Property Tax Act, 1893 PA 206, MCL 211.1 et seq., prohibits a member of a township board of review from simultaneously serving as a member of a township planning commission in the same township. The Incompatible Public Offices Act, 1978 PA 566, MCL 15.181 et seq., does not prohibit a member of a township board of review from simultaneously serving as a member of a township planning commission in the same township unless circumstances arise that would result in the individual being unable to protect, advance, and promote the interests of both offices simultaneously.
Section 222, MCL 330.1222, of the Mental Health Code, MCL 330.1001 et seq., authorizes county commissioners to serve as members of the same county’s mental health authority board. Because this dual service is authorized by law, county commissioners appointed to a mental health authority board may fully participate in meetings and deliberations of that board, and are not precluded from considering the same matters at subsequent meetings of the county’s board of commissioners in their capacity as county commissioners. The Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261 et seq., applies to a meeting of a county mental health authority board, but the presence or participation of three members of a five-member county board of commissioners when the commissioners are meeting as appointed members of the county mental health authority board to discuss or deliberate on the business of that board, does not constitute a meeting of the county board of commissioners subject to the OMA.
Section 676b, MCL 257.676b, of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq., prohibits a person from soliciting contributions, including contributions on behalf of civic or charitable organizations, from the occupants of vehicles if the person soliciting blocks, obstructs, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the normal flow of vehicular traffic upon a public street or highway in this State. No other statute or rule authorizes or permits the authorization of a person to engage in this activity. Rule 713, Mich Admin Code, R 28.1713, of the Uniform Traffic Code, prohibits a person in the improved portion of a roadway from soliciting contributions in support of a civic or charitable organization from the occupant of any vehicle. Mich Admin Code, R 28.1713.
Subsection 391(1) of 2016 PA 192, MCL 380.391(1), requires the State School Reform/Redesign Officer (SRO) to close a school operated by a community district if the school has been among the lowest achieving 5% of public schools in the State for the immediately preceding three school years, unless the SRO determines under subsection 391(3), MCL 380.391(3), that the closure would result in unreasonable hardship to pupils. The school need not be operated by the community district for the immediately preceding three school years before it is subject to closure by the SRO under subsection 391(1). The statute authorizes such closure effective no later than the end of the 2016-2017 school year.
Only operations that meet the definition of an “aquaculture facility” under the Michigan Aquaculture Development Act, 1996 PA 199, MCL 286.871 et seq., may be registered to engage in aquaculture in the State of Michigan. Under the Act, an aquaculture operation in the Michigan waters of the Great Lakes could not be registered to engage in aquaculture because the operation would not meet the current definition of an “aquaculture facility” since the Michigan waters of the Great Lakes are not “privately controlled waters” as defined in the Act.
The Age of Majority Act, 1971 PA 79, MCL 722.51 et seq., preempts a city ordinance that provides “a person shall not sell, give or furnish a tobacco product in any form to a person under 21 years of age.” The ordinance directly conflicts with state law by barring the sale or furnishing of tobacco products to 18- to 20-year-olds because the Age of Majority Act prohibits treating these young adults differently from persons 21 years and older with respect to their legal capacity to purchase tobacco products.
The offices of village president and village manager of the same village are compatible in a village with a population of less than 40,000 under subsection 3(4)(b) of the Incompatible Public Offices Act, MCL 15.183(4)(b). A village president is not prohibited from entering into an employment contract to serve as the same village’s manager in a village with a population of less than 25,000 under subsection 3a(c) of the Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities Act, MCL 15.323a(c). To the extent a village ordinance provides that its village president appoints the village manager, subsection 2(1) of the General Village Law, MCL 62.2(1), prevails over the ordinance, and the village council is the appointing authority for the village manager.
While the Superintendent of Public Instruction has broad powers under the Revised School Code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq., and the State School Aid Act, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 et seq., neither act authorizes the Superintendent to withhold state school aid funds or to cause the forfeiture of such funds by school districts that use an American Indian mascot, logo, or other imagery.
The Incompatible Public Offices Act, 1978 PA 566, MCL 15.181 et seq., prohibits an individual from holding the office of board of review member while also holding the office of county commissioner in the same county.
Employers may, but are not required to, accept duplicate certificates of marriage as proof of marriage for human resource purposes, and can instead require employees to obtain and submit a certified copy of their marriage certificates as proof of marriage.
Article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution vests exclusive authority in the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board to recommend projects to be funded through an appropriation from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. While the Legislature may approve or disapprove a recommended appropriation, the Legislature may not appropriate funds from the Natural Resources Trust Fund for a project that was not recommended by the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. The value of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund may exceed $500 million if the excess is due to interest, earnings, or other amounts authorized for expenditure under article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution. The Natural Resources Trust Fund Board is not obligated to recommend expenditure of all interest and earnings that accumulate in the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund in a given year. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility under article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution to make funding recommendations in a way that preserves and protects the entire $500 million Trust Fund principal so that the interest and earnings of the Trust Fund remain a perpetual source of money for its intended purposes. But the Board is not authorized to cause interest and earnings of the Trust Fund to accumulate indefinitely for the purpose of increasing the principal balance of the Fund beyond the $500 million cap established by the people in article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution. In the event the Natural Resources Trust Fund’s accumulated principal falls below $500 million, the revenue currently directed to the State Parks Endowment Fund under article 9, § 35a of the Michigan Constitution would not revert to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund in order to restore that fund’s principal to the $500 million cap set forth in article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution. The Legislature lacks authority to require the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board to make funding recommendations that would award an amount equal to 25 percent of funds available for development projects in the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund under article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution. Because article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution vests the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board with exclusive authority to determine which projects are eligible to receive funding, and due to the necessary interplay between that responsibility and the Board’s fiduciary duty to permanently protect the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for the purposes mandated by the people, the Board determines the total amounts made available for expenditure from the fund in a given year through its annual funding recommendations. The Legislature lacks authority to require the Natural Resources Trust Fund Board to spend a mandated amount of development funds from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund on a specific type of development. The Board has discretion to recommend the projects to be funded, subject to the limitations stated in article 9, § 35 of the Michigan Constitution, although the actual expenditure of the recommended funds requires an appropriation by the Legislature.
Subsection 4(8), MCL 15.234(8), of the Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 et seq., does not impose a specific time by which a public body must fulfill a request for public records that it has granted. Instead, the public body is guided by, but is not bound by, the "best efforts estimate" the public body must provide in its response required by subsection 5(2), MCL 15.235(2). A public body's "best efforts estimate" under subsection 4(8), MCL 15.234(8), of the Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 et seq., as to the time it will take to fulfill a request for public records, must be a calculation that contemplates the public body working diligently to fulfill its obligation to produce the records to the requestor. The estimate must be comparable to what a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the public body would provide for fulfilling a similar public records request. In addition, under subsection 4(8), MCL 15.234(8), the "best efforts estimate" must be made in "good faith," that is, it must be made honestly and without the intention to defraud or delay the requestor.In calculating its "best efforts estimate" for fulfilling a request for public records under subsection 4(8), MCL 15.234(8), of the Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 et seq., a public body may take into consideration events or factors affecting its ability to produce requested records.
Subsection 10(1)(b) of the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, MCL 408.420(1)(b), excepts from its application, including its minimum hourly wage requirement, an employer whose employees are exempt from the federal minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC 201 et seq. This exception includes agriculture employees to the extent such employees are exempt from the federal minimum wage requirement under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC 213a(6). The Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act, MCL 408.471 et seq., may apply to provide wage protections to an employee, including an agriculture employee, who is excepted from the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act’s minimum hourly wage requirements under subsection 10(1)(b), MCL 408.420(1)(b).
Unless otherwise approved under subsection 4(7) MCL 286.474(7), subsection 4(6) MCL 286.474(6) of the Right to Farm Act, 1981 PA 93, MCL 286.471 et seq., preempts provisions in ordinances adopted by local units of government that regulate farming activities when the Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development has developed generally accepted agricultural and management practices that address those farming activities.
