On June 4, 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court granted two applications for leave to appeal in cases concerning the Intergovernmental Conditional Transfer of Property by Contract Act. MCL 124.21 et seq. (Act 425).
In Teridee LLC v. Haring Township, No. 324022 the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling which voided a transfer of property between Teridee and the city of Cadillac. Teridee owns vacant land in Clam Lake Township which it sought to annex to the city of Cadillac so that it could gain access to the city’s infrastructure and develop the land. Defendants Haring Township and Clam Lake Township opposed the annexation and entered into an “Act 425 Agreement” to conditionally transfer Teridee’s property between themselves pursuant to MCL 124.21 et seq. so that it could not be annexed. Teridee brought action against the defendant townships challenging the validity of the Act 425 Agreement and was granted summary disposition in trial court. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed and the defendant townships appealed.
The Michigan Supreme Court requested briefing and oral argument on the following issues: (1) whether Inverness Mobile Home Community v Bedford Twp, 263 Mich App 241 (2004), applies to the defendant townships’ Act 425 Agreement; (2) if so, whether the challenged provisions of the Act 425 Agreement were nevertheless authorized by Section 6(c) of Act 425, MCL 124.26(c); and (3) if the challenged provisions are void, whether the offending provisions of the defendant townships’ Act 425 Agreement were severable.
In a similar case, Clam Lake Township v. LARA, No. 151800, the Michigan Supreme Court requested briefing and oral argument on the following issues: (1) whether Casco Twp v State Boundary Comm’n, 243 Mich App 392, 399 (2000), correctly held that the State Boundary Commission (SBC) has the authority to determine the validity of an Act 425 Agreement; (2) if so, whether the SBC in this case properly determined that the appellant townships’ Act 425 Agreement was invalid; and (3) whether, despite MCL 117.9(6) and MCL 123.1012(3), which require a two-year waiting period before resubmission of a petition for annexation, the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to invalidate the SBC’s 2014 approval of the appellee property owner’s petition for annexation on the basis of the SBC’s denial of the same property owner’s petition in 2012.
Teridee LLC v. Haring Township and Clam Lake Township v. LARA are to be argued and submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court together and each side is allotted fifteen minutes of oral argument time.
