PARKWOOD LTD DIVIDEND HOUSING ASSN V STATE HOUSING DEVELOP AUTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PARKWOOD LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING
ASSOCIATION,
UNPUBLISHED
October 26, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 218433
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-839763-CK
STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
PARKWOOD LIMITED DIVIDEND HOUSING
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 229448
Court of Claims
LC No. 99-017226-CM
STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Sawyer and Owens, JJ.
COOPER, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that proper subject matter
jurisdiction in this case was in the circuit court. Rather, I believe that this action would have
ultimately resulted in money damages and was properly before the Court of Claims. MCL
600.6419; 600.6419a. “[A] declaratory judgment is appropriate in the Court of Claims only if
the underlying dispute or controversy is of a nature lending itself to an eventual remedy in
money damages against the state or one of its branches.” 77th Dist Judge v Michigan, 175 Mich
App 681, 700; 438 NW2d 333 (1989). Moreover, the Supreme Court in Silverman, supra at 217,
specifically disagreed with the theory that declaratory and monetary claims, based on the same
underlying conflict, could be brought in the circuit court and court of claims respectively.
-1-
Rather, the Silverman court held that both claims must be filed in the court of claims as it is
capable of deciding the case as a whole. Id.
I further believe that any ruling allowing plaintiff sole possession of the escrow accounts
would amount to monetary damages. MCL 125.1493(b). Section 1493(b) enabled defendant to
establish the maximum return of six percent per fiscal year available to plaintiff, provided in
section 23(b) of the parties regulatory agreement, on any of the project’s assets or income. A
decision that plaintiff would be entitled to the money in the accounts, if it paid off the mortgage,
would effectuate an eventual money judgment against defendant. However, § 1493(b) also
provides that upon plaintiff’s dissolution, any surplus money in excess of the maximum return
belongs to defendant.
Even if I were to accept the argument that this money properly belongs to plaintiff, which
I do not, this situation is analogous to that of an escrow agent holding a good faith deposit for a
client. If that client were to file in circuit court, asking for its rights to have the money returned,
it would clearly be considered a complaint for money damages and not a declaratory judgment.
Thus, I would affirm the decision of the circuit court.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
