Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


GARY KULAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, TOM MCDANIEL, RACKELINE HOFF, DIANNE M. MCKEON, SCOTT MOORE, and JULIE PLOTNIK, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED April 13, 2006

No. 258905 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2004-057174-CZ

Before: White, P.J., Whitbeck, C.J., and Davis, J. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition to defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10). This case arose out of defendants' removal of plaintiff from his position on the Birmingham Planning Board. We affirm. A trial court's decision granting summary disposition is reviewed de novo, on the entire record, to determine whether the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). When reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), which tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint, this Court considers all evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grants summary disposition only where the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact. Id., 120. Under MCR 2.116(C)(8), which tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, the "well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true," and the motion is only granted if the claims are `so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.'" Id., quoting Wade v Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 162; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), where the claim is allegedly barred, the trial court must accept as true the contents of the complaint, unless they are contradicted by documentary evidence submitted by the moving party. Id., 119. Constitutional questions are also reviewed de novo. In re Hawley, 238 Mich App 509, 511; 606 NW2d 50 (1999). Similarly, questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. Heinz v Chicago Rd Investment Co, 216 Mich App 289, 295; 549 NW2d 47 (1996).

-1-


Plaintiff first argues that he was denied his rights to due process and to fair and just treatment under Const 1963, art 1,

Download GARY KULAK V CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.pdf

Michigan Law