WINDSOR CHARTER TWP V RICHARD W REMSING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WINDSOR, a
Michigan municipal corporation,
UNPUBLISHED
October 28, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 249688
Eaton Circuit Court
LC No. 02-001669-CZ
RICHARD W. REMSING,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Markey and O’Connell, JJ.
O’CONNELL, J. (concurring.)
The English language is multifaceted. The same word in a single sentence can mean two
different things. See Nippa v Botsford Hosp (On Remand), 257 Mich App 387, 395 n 8; 668
NW2d 628 (2003); Cavalier Mfg Co v Wausau, 211 Mich App 330, 341; 535 NW2d 583 (1995),
remanded 453 Mich 953 (1996), affirmed on remand 222 Mich App 89 (1997).
In the present case, the lead opinion uses the word “employee” in its generic sense, and
the dissent uses the word in its technical sense. Based upon the reasoning of both sides, it is
clear that both the lead opinion and the dissent are correct.
If I ask a handful of real estate agents whom their employer is (who they work for), I
would expect them to mention Coldwell Banker, Century 21, Real Estate One, or some other real
estate broker. Of course, I would understand that they are referring to their employer in the
generic sense: the broker that employs their time and talents to generate profit. The information
would probably be apparent from the logo they carry on their business cards and wear on their
lapels or possibly from the yellow sport coat they are wearing. The lead opinion would agree
with their response. The dissent, reading every legal nuance into the word “employer,” would
disagree.
Whatever happened to common sense? It is clear that the purpose of the ordinance is to
prevent home-based businesses from burgeoning into sprawling enterprises with cars and
workers cluttering home-lined suburban lanes. Therefore, the intent behind the ordinance is ill
served by scrupulous adherence to nomenclature. An independent contractor hired for financial
gain looks, sounds, and behaves just like an employee hired for the same purpose. Therefore, the
defendant is the “employer” in this case regardless of the word’s special meaning in tax,
-1-
insurance, liability, or other legal circles where the dissent’s hypertechnical construction actually
makes a difference.
As I stated in Nippa, supra at 393 n 5, judging is an art, not a calculus that can be
delegated to computers. While the word “employee” can have different meanings, in the context
of this ordinance it has only one meaning that makes sense. I affirm the decision of the trial
court.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
