COA clarifies that repossessed property is excluded for “bad debt” tax credit

In Ally Financial Inc v State Treasurer, No. 327815, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition holding that Ally is not entitled to a “bad debt” tax credit under MCL 205.4I because the election forms signed by the lenders apply only to “accounts currently existing or created in the future” and are not applicable to the already written off loans. The Court of Appeals also affirmed that repossessed property is excluded as ‘bad debt’ tax and clarified the interpretation of bad debt to mean what the plain language of the contract states. Further, the Court found that the Department could require plaintiffs to submit specific RD-108 forms as proof those taxes had, in fact, been paid. Read More

COA states that where insurance policy contains an “all risk” provision, a loss is not covered if it comes within any specific policy exclusion

In Michigan Battery Equipment, Inc. v. Emcasco Insurance Company, No. 326945, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an insured’s policy did not cover damage caused by wet rot because it was a risk specifically excluded under the policy. Due to prolonged water infiltration through deteriorated rubber grommets in the roof, the roof trusses of Michigan Battery Equipment’s warehouse rotted. Snow and ice accumulation caused the rotted trusses to split, crack, and fall down a few feet. Emcasco denied Michigan Battery’s insurance claim. 
  Read More

COA: Statutory language requiring rescission “in writing” of personal residence exemption not constrained to Treasury Form 2062

A homeowner’s request for rescission of the Personal Residence Exemption “in writing” is not constrained to the sole use of Michigan Department of Treasury Form 2602, say the Court of Appeals in Denton v Department of Treasury, No. 327406. Rather, the broad language of “in writing” under MCL 211.7cc(8) encapsulates more than Form 2602. Read More

COA: Probate inventory fee must be paid if estate has sufficient assets, even if it means selling the personal representative’s home

The probate inventory fee required under Michigan law is paid from the assets of the estate, not from the personal representative’s own funds, says the Michigan Court of Appeals in consolidated appeals in In re Estate of DeCoste, Nos. 327990 and 327993. The personal representative’s inability to pay is therefore irrelevant to the waiver or suspension of this fee. If the estate’s only property is a single real estate asset, then the personal representative must liquidate it to pay the fee, even if the personal representative is living in that home. Read More

COA finds that prior litigation bars additional unfunded mandate challenge

The doctrine of res judicata applies in actions to enforce the Michigan Constitution’s Headlee tax limitation amendment, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Adair v. Michigan, No. 311779. Read More

COA: Calculate renaissance zone tax credit by following Department of Treasury’s interpretation of renaissance zone business activity factor

In Andersons Albion Ethanol, LLC v. Department of Treasury, No. 327855, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the Tax Tribunal erred when it failed to apply the Department’s interpretation of a portion of the Michigan Business Tax Act regarding the calculation of a renaissance zone tax credit.   Read More

COA upholds receiver sale of mortgaged property

In Stock Building Supply v Crosswinds Communities, Inc. et. al., No. 325719, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that trial courts have authority under MCL 570.1123(2) to discharge mortgages pursuant to a sale by a receiver of encumbered property; the property is not required to be foreclosed upon before any sale under the statute commences; and finally, trial courts are not limited to solely considering other forms of consideration for the sale.  Read More

COA: Foster care is not a requirement for termination of parental rights

In In re Medina Minor, No. 328952, the Court of Appeals affirmed a probate court’s order terminating the parental rights of a father to his son, finding that the probate court's authority to conduct termination proceedings is not limited to a situation where the child is in foster care. Read More

COA holds that where public body did not regularly violate the Open Meetings Act, there is no cause for injunctive relief

In Citizens for a Better Algonac Community Schools v. Algonac Community Schools, No. 326583, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs had no cause of action under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) because there was no ongoing violation of the OMA.  Therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to the injunctive relief they sought.
Read More

COA: County’s use of a shooting range does not have priority over township ordinance

A county’s authority under the county commissioner’s act (CCA) to “site” and “erect” buildings and ancillary items consist of ancillary items specifically adapted to support the use of the buildings, such as parking lots, shrubs, and lighting, says the Michigan Court of Appeals in consolidated appeals in Coloma Charter Township v Berrien County, No. 325226 and No. 325335.  Shooting ranges are not a normal and indispensable use of county buildings, and constructing a county building next to it does not allow the shooting range to qualify as an ancillary item under the CCA. Read More
Displaying results 1-10 (of 500)
 |<  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.