Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


GLENN R. BRISSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v WARREN ELECTION COMMISSION and RICHARD PAUL SULAKA, Defendants-Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED February 8, 2005

No. 250809 Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 03-003602-AW

Before: Zahra, P.J., and Neff and Cooper, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendants appeal as of right from the trial court's order denying their claim for the costs incurred in having to reprint ballots for the September 9, 2003, primary election. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Plaintiff, who sought election to the Warren City Council, filed suit to compel defendants to place him on the ballot after defendants decided to remove his name for failure to satisfy the city's residency requirements. The trial court ultimately agreed with defendants' decision to remove plaintiff's name from the ballot after reviewing testimony taken at hearings held by defendant Warren Election Commission and reviewing the materials presented by the parties in support of their positions. The trial court also held that defendants were not entitled to recover costs incurred as a result of having to print a second ballot that did not list plaintiff as a candidate. Due to the timing of plaintiff's claim and the imminent election, however, this case was reviewed in an expedited manner. As a result, defendants never filed a formal counterclaim against plaintiff for these costs. Defendants maintain that the trial court erred when it decided this issue without having been presented with a written counterclaim in response to plaintiff's writ of mandamus. We disagree. Defendants provide no authority directly on point in support of their position that they were prejudiced by the trial court's failure to allow them the opportunity to file a counterclaim. They simply cite to MCR 2.203(C), 2.203(E) and 2.108(A)(1) and state that, under the court rules, they had twenty-one days to answer the plaintiff's complaint and file a counterclaim for damages. Defendants assert that they were denied the opportunity to file an unspecified counterclaim due to the timing of the trial court's intermediate orders and its premature decision. -1-


More importantly, defendants do not disclose under what theory they would be entitled to recover the printing costs. They provide a citation to

Download GLENN R BRISSON V WARREN ELECTION COMM.pdf

Michigan Law